Remember that cop that was speeding with no siren/lights?

Jstas

Kill a couple of kids when they pulled out in front of him?

Yeah, he got fired. That's it.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/12/15/news/milford/a1_--_anderson_1215.txt

Milford cop fired: 2nd officer suspended in high-speed crash

By James Tinley, Register Staff

MILFORD — Police Officer Jason Anderson was fired Monday night, six months and one day after the cruiser he was driving slammed into a car carrying two Orange teens, killing them both.

The Board of Police Commissioners upheld Police Chief Keith Mello’s recommendation to terminate Anderson based on the findings of an internal investigation into the five-year police veteran’s conduct the night of the fatal June 13 accident. The police board suspended Officer Richard Pisani, 39, for 30 days without pay and extended his probationary period by a year.

The police board found both officers failed to obey traffic laws when their emergency lights and sirens were off, violated department rules and engaged in conduct unbecoming of an officer.

Both men sat side-by-side as six police commissioners unanimously voted to impose the discipline.

Police board Chairman Carleton Giles abstained from voting and did not sit in on the closed-door session with the officers and their union attorneys because he is a Norwalk police officer with close ties to the lawyers.

Anderson, 34, was traveling 94 mph on the Boston Post Road in Orange when his cruiser broadsided a Mazda carrying Ashlie Krakowski and David Servin, both 19, according court documents.

The 2:15 a.m. crash was captured on video by the in-dash camera of a second cruiser, driven by Pisani.

A display of a GPS-based speedometer on the camera mounted in Pisani’s car shows he was traveling 65 mph when Anderson’s cruiser passed him on the right. Pisani then continues to accelerate, reaching 72 mph as Anderson pulls away just before the crash.

State’s Attorney Kevin D. Lawlor has said Pisani will not be prosecuted.

“These decisions are not made lightly, and they are always made with sound legal advice,” Mello said in a prepared statement Monday. “We have an obligation to the public and to our employees to do what is right, even when it may not be what’s popular. That means following a set of established rules and procedures, designed not only to protect the rights of a public employee, but to ensure that our decisions are not overturned at the Connecticut Labor Board or in a court of law.”

Anderson had been suspended with pay after he was charged in November with two counts of second-degree manslaughter and reckless driving. His case is pending in Superior Court in Milford. Anderson’s lawyer, Hugh F. Keefe of New Haven, has said the police board’s decision will have no bearing on the criminal case.

The police chief can only suspend a police officer for 15 days without authorization from the civilian police board, according to the police union contract. Anderson was a union employee, but Pisani is a probationary officer without union protection. Usually, new officers have a one-year probationary period. Pisani’s was due to end in February, but was extended by a year, Mello said.

Mello has stressed both officers are entitled to due process.

Before the meeting, attorneys for the Servin and Krakowski estates said they are still looking for an explanation of why the officers were driving so fast.

“On behalf of the Servins, I can say the issue for us is not the employment status of the two gentlemen; the issue is we want an explanation from the Milford Police Department of why they were going this rate of speed. What were they doing?” R. Bartley Halloran of Farmington, the lawyer for Servin’s estate, said Monday.

Driving 95 mph should be cause to terminate Anderson even if it didn’t result in the death of two teens, John F. Wynne, attorney for the Krakowski estate, said Monday.

“This is a situation where there wasn’t any explanation. There was no reason that we know of that either officer had to be traveling that fast,” Wynne said.

Servin and Krakowski, who were dating, were at a party hours before the accident, state police have said.

Sources have said that toxicology reports reveal both teens had a blood alcohol content well above the legal limit for an adult when they tried to turn left onto Dogwood Road. The host of the party, Jaycen Munro, 21, of Milford, has been arrested and has pleaded not guilty to the charges of providing alcohol to minors and allowing minors to illegally possess alcohol.

James Tinley can be reached at jtinley@nhregister.com or 203-789-5702.

Whether the kids were illegally drunk or not should excuse this guy from a gross abuse of power and gross negligence in his duties. His actions led to the death of two people. Criminal charges are pending a Superior Court case. The whole thing still makes me sick.

KASR

Criminal charges for sure...be interesting to see how it turns out. Is justice "really" blind?

ryanjoachim

KASR wrote: »

Criminal charges for sure...be interesting to see how it turns out. Is justice "really" blind?

Yes.

vc69

Happened here in Brandon, Ms. about a year ago. The officer was "cleared of any wrong doing" (by his own dept). Supposedly, the kid had marijuana in his system and that was the grounds for the exoneration.

Now it's in civil court as the family has filed a 5 million dollar lawsuit.

Face

I see cops do that all the time around here. You'd be surprised how many times people see lights coming up quick behind them and they end up cutting off the cop or slamming on their brakes.

madmax

Face wrote: »

I see cops do that all the time around here. You'd be surprised how many times people see lights coming up quick behind them and they end up cutting off the cop or slamming on their brakes.

So you think this was OK?
madmax

TNRabbit

The driver bears SOME degree of fault as he was over the limit & pulled in front of a speeding car. The fact the officer's didn't have their lights on demonstrates some degree of fault as well. The parents/family will have to extract their justice in $$$ through civil court, looks like...

There is definitely an issue if a cop is in pursuit & doesn't have lights on. That's standard policy with all police departments & just good common sense.

Face

madmax wrote: »

So you think this was OK?
madmax

I'm not saying that either, but I understand why they do it.

I-SIG

On a not quite as serious note, around Tucson we have those damn traffic enforcement cameras. A fair number of cops apparently thought they could just zip right on through these cameras whether they were on an emergency call or not....

....Not so fast my friend!!! All the coppers not on a call had to pay the fine or go to traffic school!!!

Wes

phuz

That's not "it".

Two counts of second-degree manslaughter is no joke.

raidersrule76

I'm sure that with the civil suit part of it they will use the excuse that they were over the legal limit and that was the reason for the crash. Now i'm no expert but I am gonna take a guess, because of the time in the morning and the fact that there were two officers involved that they were racing. Now this might not be the case but lets look at the facts there were two patrol cars neither one had their light or sirens on and they were both going at high rates of speed. I might be totally off on this one but just my .02


Mark

bobman1235

phuz wrote: »

That's not "it".

Two counts of second-degree manslaughter is no joke.

This. Criminal charges pending. They'll get their day in court.

madmax

TNRabbit wrote: »

The driver bears SOME degree of fault as he was over the limit & pulled in front of a speeding car.

I have to wonder about this one. I think pretty much anyone (not under the influence of anything) can look down the street and determine a safe distance exists between themselves and an oncoming car and decide to pull out. However, if that car is doing 90+ mph it will not be evident to the driver pulling out and they will hit. Part of this judgement depends on knowing what the normal speed of the other car is. You cannot judge the speed of something coming towards you. This is one reason lights and siren are used to start with.
madmax

tommyboy

My biggest problem with this is not that he was going 90+ with no lights on, its that (as far as read from this article) there was no reason he was going this fast. It seemed he was just speeding for the hell of it.

now I do think this would not have happened if the kid was not drinking. Sometimes when I'm making a left I think of moving but then notice the car going way above the speed limit and I immediatlly stop. When you are drinking, that split second reaction times is just not there.


So if one of them wouldn't been breaking the law this would have never of happened

1dotson

vc69 wrote: »

Happened here in Brandon, Ms. about a year ago. The officer was "cleared of any wrong doing" (by his own dept). Supposedly, the kid had marijuana in his system and that was the grounds for the exoneration.

Now it's in civil court as the family has filed a 5 million dollar lawsuit.

Yes it did, but what many may not know is that the cop was driving with a 16 yr old in his front passenger seat at the time of the wreck. Remember the BPD saying the cop was on a burglary call that night??? Since when do you carry minors to burglary calls at midnight? They are also saying the cop was driving a "minimum" of 72mph in a 45. The 19yr olds car landed "296" ft from point of impact. The officer was cleared & the supposed investigation was closed within 1 week. The RSO & BPD WOULD NOT answer any questions of the parents & never told them of the officers actions. The cops also stated the overpass/bridge was not a factor in the wreck but this overpass is 30-40ft from the stop sign where the teen was pulling out. The teen probably never saw the speeding cop until it was too late...2 or 3 second reaction time & your dead.

exalted512

I-SIG wrote: »

On a not quite as serious note, around Tucson we have those damn traffic enforcement cameras. A fair number of cops apparently thought they could just zip right on through these cameras whether they were on an emergency call or not....

....Not so fast my friend!!! All the coppers not on a call had to pay the fine or go to traffic school!!!

Wes

We had those cameras in our town for a while. I live in College Station, home of Texas A&M University who had just done a study proving that red light cameras increase accidents and that adding 1 extra second to the length of a yellow light reduces running red lights more so than red light cameras. So what does the city of College Station do? Put up red light cameras. A couple months ago the people here were fed up enough with them that the cameras got voted out.

tommyboy wrote: »

My biggest problem with this is not that he was going 90+ with no lights on, its that (as far as read from this article) there was no reason he was going this fast. It seemed he was just speeding for the hell of it.

now I do think this would not have happened if the kid was not drinking. Sometimes when I'm making a left I think of moving but then notice the car going way above the speed limit and I immediatlly stop. When you are drinking, that split second reaction times is just not there.


So if one of them wouldn't been breaking the law this would have never of happened

I was once turning right on a 4 lane road (2 lanes each way). There was a car in the closest lane to me (the outside lane) and a car further back in the other lane (inside lane). It was night. I pulled out into the inside lane so the closest car would not have to slow down for me. Well, the car in the inside lane was a cop who was doing probably close to 60 in a 40 without his lights on. I didn't realize until after I had pulled out. He pulled me over and gave me a warning...wtf? Some cops are idiots...but thats just like any other job, every profession has their idiots. Unfortunately, the cop in the OP's article was an idiot that killed two kids, drunk, or otherwise.

1dotson wrote: »

Yes it did, but what many may not know is that the cop was driving with a 16 yr old in his front passenger seat at the time of the wreck. Remember the BPD saying the cop was on a burglary call that night??? Since when do you carry minors to burglary calls at midnight? They are also saying the cop was driving a "minimum" of 72mph in a 45. The 19yr olds car landed "296" ft from point of impact. The officer was cleared & the supposed investigation was closed within 1 week. The RSO & BPD WOULD NOT answer any questions of the parents & never told them of the officers actions. The cops also stated the overpass/bridge was not a factor in the wreck but this overpass is 30-40ft from the stop sign where the teen was pulling out. The teen probably never saw the speeding cop until it was too late...2 or 3 second reaction time & your dead.

interesting first post. Welcome to Club Polk.
-Cody

Dawgfish

I had an experience here with our local law enforcement about a year ago. I was pulling out of a sidestreet onto a very busy local road one night. I looked both ways before pulling out. I saw some lights in the distance, but the lights looked to be at least 300 to 400 yards down the road and the speed limit on the road I was pulling into was 35 miles an hour, so I thought I had plenty of room to safely pull out into the road. I pulled out and the headlights were on me pretty quickly. It turned out the car was a local deputy sheriffs vehicle. He pulled me over, searched my vehicle, gave me a sobriety test (I had not been drinking), and gave me a ticket for failure to yield right of way. The thing is, I am positive to this day that there was lots of room between me and the deputy sheriff's vehicle when I pulled out. I am positive that the deputy sheriff was grossly speeding. There was no way he could have been going 35 and came up on me so quick within the distance I estimated him being between us. Yes, I will admit there is the possibility that I misjudged the disance on that one, but I never seem to misjudge distances normally. Again, I am really sure the sheriff was doing at least 60-70 mph on a 35 mph road. I paid the ticket, because I did not want any trouble, but I kind of wished I could have afforded a good lawyer and faught that one.

vc69

1dotson wrote: »

Yes it did, but what many may not know is that the cop was driving with a 16 yr old in his front passenger seat at the time of the wreck. Remember the BPD saying the cop was on a burglary call that night??? Since when do you carry minors to burglary calls at midnight? They are also saying the cop was driving a "minimum" of 72mph in a 45. The 19yr olds car landed "296" ft from point of impact. The officer was cleared & the supposed investigation was closed within 1 week. The RSO & BPD WOULD NOT answer any questions of the parents & never told them of the officers actions. The cops also stated the overpass/bridge was not a factor in the wreck but this overpass is 30-40ft from the stop sign where the teen was pulling out. The teen probably never saw the speeding cop until it was too late...2 or 3 second reaction time & your dead.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the RSO and BPD circled the wagons and protected the officer involved. They are certainly one of the most self-contained and corrupt police agencies in the state. I have first hand experience.
I am also quite familier with that interchange and it is quite dangerous both entering and exiting I-20. The sad part is, the kid was black, the officer white. Knowing Rankin county, that was and will be a factor in how this plays out in civil court. There are pockets of old school racism here in Mississippi that are quite entrenched. Rankin county is one of them. I despise that place.

wingnut4772

exalted512 wrote: »

I was once turning right on a 4 lane road (2 lanes each way). There was a car in the closest lane to me (the outside lane) and a car further back in the other lane (inside lane). It was night. I pulled out into the inside lane so the closest car would not have to slow down for me. Well, the car in the inside lane was a cop who was doing probably close to 60 in a 40 without his lights on. I didn't realize until after I had pulled out. He pulled me over and gave me a warning...wtf? Some cops are idiots...but thats just like any other job, every profession has their idiots. Unfortunately, the cop in the OP's article was an idiot that killed two kids, drunk, or otherwise.



interesting first post. Welcome to Club Polk.
-Cody

You don't give up your duty to yield to oncoming traffic because of their speed. If that had been an accident it would have been your fault. And unless there was serious injury or a fatality it would not be investigated otherwise. In FL., as a cop, I get several in progress calls such as a burglary in progress, or a theft in progress etc. to where we are not supposed to go over the speed limit per S.O.P. However, if it was your home being broken into I am sure that you would appreciate the officers getting there in an expeditious manner. Believe it or not, usually we are the good guys and like to catch people doing crap to you and yours. So you never know. Now in florida if he was going 30+ over the limit without being on a proper signal, AND you pulled out in front of him AND there was serious injury or death - then you might have the opportunity to call that cop an idiot. Until then I suggest you don't pull out in front of cars when you have the duty to yield the right of way.

Dawgfish

wingnut4772,

I have no problem at all with law enforcement in general and believe law enforcement is there to help, not hinder. We all have a job to do and I know law enforcement officials do to. I also understand that most law enforcement officals are underpaid, underappreciated, and do not get the recognition in general for the jobs they do, especailly given the fact that y'all put your lives in harms way frequently. I have some close friends that are in law enforcement. I have no axe to grind with law enforcement in general.

I was simply commenting on my case. Yes it is our duty as a driver to yield the right of way. You will get no arguement out of me. I do believe in my case however that given the distance I saw the incoming vehicle coming towards me, which was at least 300 to 400 yards on a 35 mph road, I more than adequately yielded the right of way. There was plenty of room between me and the vehicle. I am positive of this. The fact that the officer was driving WELL over the speed limit on the road and did not have his siren or lights on was what led to the incident in my opinion. Agian, I believe the officer was traveling easily 60 to 70 miles an hour on a 35 mph road. I was doing 35 mph when I noticed the officers car breaking hard on my tail.

I have always been taught you lead by example. I always try to live by this motto. I believe law enforcement should lead by example also and traveling 60 to 70 mph on a busy 35 mph road with no lights or siren on, or not apparently being on call is not exactly being a good example. I know that's just my opinion and we all know about opinions, but in my case it's an opinion I feel very strongly I was right on. Just my dos centavos.

wingnut4772

Dawgfish wrote: »

wingnut4772,

I have no problem at all with law enforcement in general and believe law enforcement is there to help, not hinder. We all have a job to do and I know law enforcement officials do to. I also understand that most law enforcement officals are underpaid, underappreciated, and do not get the recognition in general for the jobs they do, especailly given the fact that y'all put your lives in harms way frequently. I have some close friends that are in law enforcement. I have no axe to grind with law enforcement in general.

I was simply commenting on my case. Yes it is our duty as a driver to yield the right of way. You will get no arguement out of me. I do believe in my case however that given the distance I saw the incoming vehicle coming towards me, which was at least 300 to 400 yards on a 35 mph road, I more than adequately yielded the right of way. There was plenty of room between me and the vehicle. I am positive of this. The fact that the officer was driving WELL over the speed limit on the road and did not have his siren or lights on was what led to the incident in my opinion. Agian, I believe the officer was traveling easily 60 to 70 miles an hour on a 35 mph road. I was doing 35 mph when I noticed the officers car breaking hard on my tail.

I have always been taught you lead by example. I always try to live by this motto. I believe law enforcement should lead by example also and traveling 60 to 70 mph on a busy 35 mph road with no lights or siren on, or not apparently being on call is not exactly being a good example. I know that's just my opinion and we all know about opinions, but in my case it's an opinion I feel very strongly I was right on. Just my dos centavos.

Like a brick wall. Ok. Carry on.

Dawgfish

Call it like you see it. So you're saying it's perfectly ok for this officer to be grossly speeding with no siren, or lights on? If so, than I disagree, but that's ok. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Carry on as well, master of the masonry.

concealer404

400 yards is plenty yield space for 60mph traffic.... We're talking 4 football fields here. It's a little hard to judge if traffic is going 35mph as it should be, or if there's someone speeding like crazy from that distance, so it's pretty natural to assume that they're going 35mph or around there.

If that cop had rear-ended him around here, with 4 football fields to correct his speed before rear-ending a citizen going the speed limit, rest be assured the citizen would NOT be found at fault.

But that could vary on location, i really don't know.

tommyboy

So did anyone find out why the cop was speeding?

jflail2

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Like a brick wall. Ok. Carry on.

He actually had a good point......at least I thought.

Your yielding argument was intelligent, absolutely. However, so were the questions about why they were going that fast to no call with no lights/sirens on.

And honestly, from the description (pretend it said NOTHING about leo's), wouldn't your first knee jerk reaction AS AN OFFICER be that they were racing/showing off/testosteroning it up? The time + the location + the speeds+ the report of the 2 drivers "revving each other up" to higher speeds...

I'm no cop, and obviously no genius, but this just screams "we got caught racing and it sucks" to me...

treitz3

Though it isn't illegal for a cop to speed, they can get in trouble, even demoted if you know what to do. What bursts my bubble [and this is no lie] is when I see a cop with his lights on, flying past me at lord only knows what speed limit only to pull into a Krispy Kreme where there are three other cop cars parked. Just for **** and giggles, I went into this KK and ordered a doughnut.

There was no emergency.

wingnut4772

jflail2 wrote: »

He actually had a good point......at least I thought.

Your yielding argument was intelligent, absolutely. However, so were the questions about why they were going that fast to no call with no lights/sirens on.

And honestly, from the description (pretend it said NOTHING about leo's), wouldn't your first knee jerk reaction AS AN OFFICER be that they were racing/showing off/testosteroning it up? The time + the location + the speeds+ the report of the 2 drivers "revving each other up" to higher speeds...

I'm no cop, and obviously no genius, but this just screams "we got caught racing and it sucks" to me...

No. Failure to yield. And you are supposed to stay in the lane closest to the intersection as well. Of course, this is in Florida. Practically speaking, unless it's a fatality or serious bodily injury, the onus will be on the vehicle that failed to yield. Period. You guys can cry all day long about how unfair that seems but that's just the way it is. Civilians cannot attest to the speed of oncoming vehicles.

jflail2

wingnut4772 wrote: »

No. Failure to yield. And you are supposed to stay in the lane closest to the intersection as well. Of course, this is in Florida. Practically speaking, unless it's a fatality or serious bodily injury, the onus will be on the vehicle that failed to yield. Period. You guys can cry all day long about how unfair that seems but that's just the way it is. Civilians cannot attest to the speed of oncoming vehicles.

Wow, now that is interesting/scary. So if 2 kids are racing their rice burners side by side on a 2 lane road at say 120, and you "fail to yield" pulling out of your driveway b/c you don't have ninja reflexes, it's your fault even though they were breaking the law as well? "Failure to yield" sounds a bit vague.....obviously you either stopped or you didn't, but that seems like it would be trumped by 2 persons racing (at least from a dumb John Q Public standpoint.)

What an interesting world we live in...

And if something is REALLY wrong, and enough people cry about it, hopefully it changes to a more common sense measure (like letting women vote. How was that ever a bad idea? But to someone 100 years ago it probably made sense in some twisted way.) Failure to yield is obviously an important/detrimental infraction, but so is speeding or they wouldn't have speed limits. I have friends that are LEO here, and this is simply irresponsible/epic fail on their part, EVEN IF the kids were 10 sheets in the wind. Had a swat team member here tell me that himself...

exalted512

wingnut4772 wrote: »

You don't give up your duty to yield to oncoming traffic because of their speed. If that had been an accident it would have been your fault. And unless there was serious injury or a fatality it would not be investigated otherwise. In FL., as a cop, I get several in progress calls such as a burglary in progress, or a theft in progress etc. to where we are not supposed to go over the speed limit per S.O.P. However, if it was your home being broken into I am sure that you would appreciate the officers getting there in an expeditious manner. Believe it or not, usually we are the good guys and like to catch people doing crap to you and yours. So you never know. Now in florida if he was going 30+ over the limit without being on a proper signal, AND you pulled out in front of him AND there was serious injury or death - then you might have the opportunity to call that cop an idiot. Until then I suggest you don't pull out in front of cars when you have the duty to yield the right of way.

I'm really not trying to start an argument with you, so please dont take it that way, having said that...I'm calling BS.

You're saying a cop with NO lights on can be speeding and if I pull out in front of him from a stop sign with plenty of room to spare HAD he been going the speed limit...and he hits me--its my fault?

I can CERTAINLY see where it would be my fault if he had his lights ON, but he didn't.

Again, not trying to start an argument with you...I just don't see how that can possibly be right.
-Cody

wingnut4772

jflail2 wrote: »

Wow, now that is interesting/scary. So if 2 kids are racing their rice burners side by side on a 2 lane road at say 120, and you "fail to yield" pulling out of your driveway b/c you don't have ninja reflexes, it's your fault even though they were breaking the law as well? "Failure to yield" sounds a bit vague.....obviously you either stopped or you didn't, but that seems like it would be trumped by 2 persons racing (at least from a dumb John Q Public standpoint.)

What an interesting world we live in...

And if something is REALLY wrong, and enough people cry about it, hopefully it changes to a more common sense measure (like letting women vote. How was that ever a bad idea? But to someone 100 years ago it probably made sense in some twisted way.) Failure to yield is obviously an important/detrimental infraction, but so is speeding or they wouldn't have speed limits. I have friends that are LEO here, and this is simply irresponsible/epic fail on their part, EVEN IF the kids were 10 sheets in the wind. Had a swat team member here tell me that himself...

exalted512 wrote: »

I'm really not trying to start an argument with you, so please dont take it that way, having said that...I'm calling BS.

You're saying a cop with NO lights on can be speeding and if I pull out in front of him from a stop sign with plenty of room to spare HAD he been going the speed limit...and he hits me--its my fault?

I can CERTAINLY see where it would be my fault if he had his lights ON, but he didn't.

Again, not trying to start an argument with you...I just don't see how that can possibly be right.
-Cody

It is. 2 wrongs don't make a right. The failure to yield has more weight. Like I said , If the speed is 30MPH plus over then the speeder violates that , however, you have to prove it and it has to be in the interest of the state and the insurance companies to want to prove it - serious bodily harm etc....

Of course the drag racers cannot drag race. Stop thinking emotionally and think practically. An officer who arrives did not witness the racing. If they did you are golden. All they see is the failure to yield.

bigaudiofanatic

I am glad he got fired. Just my opinion.