Police chase goes wrong way on I-465

Police chase goes wrong way on I-465

There are 77 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Jul 20, 2007, titled Police chase goes wrong way on I-465. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

A driver who led police on a chase the wrong way on I-465 on the Southside was arrested early this morning.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

paisleyposey

“END THE FED!”

Since: Feb 07

DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!!

#68 Jul 20, 2007
Fearless and Happy wrote:
<quoted text>
Appears you be the "one hate n". I have noticed that she does change her picture and have to say she has some very nice pictures. Also they are not all of her.
By the way I have no clue who she is and don't know her.
LOL, be careful, that troll will try to bully you for months just for speaking to me.
I frequent a great thread in Top Stories where several 'cyber friends' hang out. It's like a chatroom, so the posts do add up. We also 'show' each other things we are talking about, using our avatars. I'm not sure what this person's beef is with me, but I truly don't give a sh1t. SOMEBODY seems intimidated to me.
Have a great weekend.
Jones

Fort Thomas, KY

#69 Jul 20, 2007
In regards to the K-9 being used, the K-9 won the fight!!!!!!!!!!
In Iraq by choice

Satellite Provider

#71 Jul 20, 2007
Sull Bhit wrote:
I'm not in favor of 'stop-sticks.' First, it needlessly damages property of another prior to a determination of guilt. Next, it may cause the car to wreck and injure the occupants without know if all in the car were guilty of anything. I think it would be better to use loud speakers on the police car to inform the driver of the legal consequences of fleeing. Or, perhaps a line of airbags in the road that would stop the car without risk of injury to the occupants. I think the police are too quick to use the stop-sticks without know all the facts. I thought we were trying to be a kinder gentler people.
Anyone not favoring the use of any specific item in fighting crime that will be used on "yet to be convicted" fleeing felons has an apparent issue with police authority, let alone authority.

I hope you weren't serious about damage caused to the property of someone fleeing.

Cause and effect...if you're trying to get away, ohhh, say 35 or so miles per hour, well over and above the posted speed limit, for the distance they traveled, why wouldn't the police want to learn of "your" emergency.

I think the excuse of trying to find a toilet has been ruled out...I bet the "prospective" felon p*ssed themselves!

Personal responsibility for one's own actions...what's your take on that issue, Mr. Bull Sh*t?!
G-Man

Cincinnati, OH

#72 Jul 20, 2007
Sull Bhit wrote:
I'm not in favor of 'stop-sticks.' First, it needlessly damages property of another prior to a determination of guilt. Next, it may cause the car to wreck and injure the occupants without know if all in the car were guilty of anything. I think it would be better to use loud speakers on the police car to inform the driver of the legal consequences of fleeing. Or, perhaps a line of airbags in the road that would stop the car without risk of injury to the occupants. I think the police are too quick to use the stop-sticks without know all the facts. I thought we were trying to be a kinder gentler people.
If someone's going the wrong way on the interstate, he's guilty of reckless driving, if nothing else, and a stop stick is justified. The air bags are a good idea, too. I didn't know there was such an air bag. As for using loud speakers to let the errant driver know the consequences of fleeting, everyone knows you don't try to outrun the police. Why should they need to be told?
Awol

Bellevue, WA

#73 Jul 20, 2007
Scan wrote:
Again....expand the use of Capital Punishment!!
YES, YES, YES, take them all down and OUT.
Awol

Bellevue, WA

#74 Jul 20, 2007
Sull Bhit wrote:
I'm not in favor of 'stop-sticks.' First, it needlessly damages property of another prior to a determination of guilt. Next, it may cause the car to wreck and injure the occupants without know if all in the car were guilty of anything. I think it would be better to use loud speakers on the police car to inform the driver of the legal consequences of fleeing. Or, perhaps a line of airbags in the road that would stop the car without risk of injury to the occupants. I think the police are too quick to use the stop-sticks without know all the facts. I thought we were trying to be a kinder gentler people.
WHAT PLANET ARE UI FROM ??

“God Bless America”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#75 Jul 20, 2007
Sull Bhit wrote:
I'm not in favor of 'stop-sticks.' First, it needlessly damages property of another prior to a determination of guilt. Next, it may cause the car to wreck and injure the occupants without know if all in the car were guilty of anything. I think it would be better to use loud speakers on the police car to inform the driver of the legal consequences of fleeing. Or, perhaps a line of airbags in the road that would stop the car without risk of injury to the occupants. I think the police are too quick to use the stop-sticks without know all the facts. I thought we were trying to be a kinder gentler people.
Stop sticks are designed to puncture the tire and allow the air to escape slowly. That is why the person tossing the sticks pulls them back immediatley after the runner goes over them. After all the police cars are behind them.

Keep in mind that if a person is fleeing the person has violated the law and at that point there is Probable Cause to stop and arrest them. Why are they running. Most of the time the police do not know. It could be very important the person be stopped and the sticks are safer than shooting or even the pit maneuver.

An caravan of police cars, in my opinion, is over kill, especially as they enter other jurisdictions more cars enter the chase. I believe a supervisor should call off all but essential cars. I also believe all lengthy chases should be disected to see if better techniques would have been better.
Arcadia Native

United States

#76 Jul 20, 2007
Jack wrote:
They need to charge him with attempted murder. If these suspects want to flee police at high speeds and go the wrong way on the roads they need to be charged with attempted murder. Maybe this will cut down on these ridiculous idiots fleeing police. This disgusts me. It could have been so much worse.
Charging this dude with attempted murder would only clog the appealate court.
If you want change it has to come from the laws that a Judge goes by. Call your representative or senator. If you can pry them away from some lobbyist then maybe he/she will listen.
Of coarse, they only listen to people who actually vote
stimy

United States

#78 Jul 21, 2007
JTT wrote:
<quoted text> So who is forcing you to read her posts and look at her picture? Sounds like you could use an attitude adjustment.
just cause your her husband and married a ugly girl, ill respond. she forces us to read and look at here pic. by the simple fact, that you can't get on this blog without seeing her stupid posts over and over again.
her posts never make sense. they are pracically retarded. almost as bad as that one called "mommy". it's like they have nothing better to do all day. and plain and simple sh'e stone cold ugly. i know i am so i don't put mine on here.
sugar

United States

#79 Jul 21, 2007
Sull Bhit wrote:
I'm not in favor of 'stop-sticks.' First, it needlessly damages property of another prior to a determination of guilt. Next, it may cause the car to wreck and injure the occupants without know if all in the car were guilty of anything. I think it would be better to use loud speakers on the police car to inform the driver of the legal consequences of fleeing. Or, perhaps a line of airbags in the road that would stop the car without risk of injury to the occupants. I think the police are too quick to use the stop-sticks without know all the facts. I thought we were trying to be a kinder gentler people.
dude, are you retarded?
dont be hate n

United States

#80 Jul 21, 2007
paisleyposey wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, be careful, that troll will try to bully you for months just for speaking to me.
I frequent a great thread in Top Stories where several 'cyber friends' hang out. It's like a chatroom, so the posts do add up. We also 'show' each other things we are talking about, using our avatars. I'm not sure what this person's beef is with me, but I truly don't give a sh1t. SOMEBODY seems intimidated to me.
Have a great weekend.
jesus! now you put that ugly kid on here. yuck! must take after you. and cyber friend? common get a life and get real friends you meet and socialize with, in person. if not IM eacother or something.
and at least have something worthy enough to write about.

Since: Jul 07

Indianapolis, IN

#81 Jul 21, 2007
Nolin wrote:
How many times do we really need to make it clear that "WTHR reported"?
In journalism, it's called attribution. If the reporter was not there to witness an event, attribution must be included for each fact; you can't just provide attribution once and forget about it.
Sorry but I must agree

United States

#82 Jul 21, 2007
dont be hate n wrote:
<quoted text>
jesus! now you put that ugly kid on here. yuck! must take after you. and cyber friend? common get a life and get real friends you meet and socialize with, in person. if not IM eacother or something.
and at least have something worthy enough to write about.
I thought you were just being mean, but the poor kid IS kinda homely.
eyewitness

United States

#83 Jul 21, 2007
I just wonder why nothing else has been reported about this man or what he had done, the locals said he ran off without paying for gas.. IF THATS THE CASE SHAME ON THEM ALL!!!!!I have to pay for my gas and work at a gas station, if you dont have a license number they wont do anything for my driveoffs. and to have two countys and all kinds of municipals in the chase was OVERKILL. The paper said the passenger got out , they had the name of the driver. IF I was seen doing something, you think they wouldnt come to my house for me???
suburbs

Decatur, IL

#84 Jul 22, 2007
Actually it only needs to be noted once, either at the beginning or ending of the article. It's done everyday in every form of Journalism.
Jeez Wiz wrote:
<quoted text>
In journalism, it's called attribution. If the reporter was not there to witness an event, attribution must be included for each fact; you can't just provide attribution once and forget about it.
bite me

United States

#85 Jul 22, 2007
eyewitness wrote:
I just wonder why nothing else has been reported about this man or what he had done, the locals said he ran off without paying for gas.. IF THATS THE CASE SHAME ON THEM ALL!!!!!I have to pay for my gas and work at a gas station, if you dont have a license number they wont do anything for my driveoffs. and to have two countys and all kinds of municipals in the chase was OVERKILL. The paper said the passenger got out , they had the name of the driver. IF I was seen doing something, you think they wouldnt come to my house for me???
don't believe the locals dumby. they robbed a woman. no wonder people steal your gas. you're to stupid to catch them.
Socrates

Indianapolis, IN

#86 Jul 23, 2007
Sull Bhit wrote:
I'm not in favor of 'stop-sticks.' First, it needlessly damages property of another prior to a determination of guilt. Next, it may cause the car to wreck and injure the occupants without know if all in the car were guilty of anything. I think it would be better to use loud speakers on the police car to inform the driver of the legal consequences of fleeing. Or, perhaps a line of airbags in the road that would stop the car without risk of injury to the occupants. I think the police are too quick to use the stop-sticks without know all the facts. I thought we were trying to be a kinder gentler people.
First, don't run from the cops and they won't use a stop stick on you.

Next, don't run from the cops, they won't use stop sticks, and the drivers and passengers of the car won't get injured.

And... Loud speakers? Are you kidding me? So, if they aren't stopping for several cars with lights and sirens getting on a loud speaker and saying, "You're in big trouble mister!" is going to make them stop? I mean, I can see the criminal now thinking, "Wow. I didn't realize how much trouble I was causing until they came on the speakers and told me." Not going to work.

The police use calculated steps to try and stop someone based on the level of danger the suspect presents. By the simple fact of running from the cops you have broken the law. That alone gives cause to use appropriate force in aprehending a law breaker.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Johnson County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police: Man took pictures of nude boys (Jan '10) May '16 shelly 3
News Johnson County man arrested for child molestation (Dec '13) Jun '15 Captain Jailbait 10
News Animal incinerator building needs repairs (Jul '07) May '15 farmerjohn 2
News Speedrome memorabilia recalls golden era of Ind... (Dec '14) Dec '14 Mike Smith 1
News Girls Inc. programs help build girls' self-esteem (Dec '11) Apr '14 JPT 2
News GM Stamping plant recommended as new criminal j... (Mar '14) Mar '14 USS Liberty 1
weddings (Oct '13) Oct '13 ima hoosier 1
More from around the web