JSO Officer Gary Ellis in 3-Car Pileup, lets Elderly Bank Robber on Cane Escape

[ChriswUfGator]

http://www.news4jax.com/news/24456951/detail.html

Officer Responding To Robbery Gets In Wreck

POSTED: Friday, July 30, 2010
UPDATED: 7:28 pm EDT July 30, 2010

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A police officer rushing to a robbery of a bank Friday afternoon was involved in a crash of three vehicles on Herschel Street.

The Florida Bank in Riverside was robbed just after 1 p.m. Officer Gary Ellis was responding to the call in an unmarked sports utility vehicle when police said a woman in another SUV pulled into his path, sending the officer's vehicle into yet another SUV.

None of the drivers were hurt, but the officer was shaken up. Channel 4 was told the woman in the first vehicle was cited for causing the accident.

As for the bank robbery, police were looking for an older man who handed a teller a note and demanded money. Police said the robber was carrying a cane.

The man walked away after the robbery and was still at large as of late Friday afternoon.

Copyright 2010 by News4Jax.com.

This particular cop is a real genius...

So a bank gets robbed and he gets in a 3 car pileup on the way to the call, and the robber gets away. Mind you, he doesn't just escape in a car. Doesn't escape on a motorcycle. He escaped...on his CANE!!!!! Awesome job, officer!

Seriously, that is some SUPERB police work...

[NotNow]

A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that.  The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way.  But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash.  This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer. 

[ChriswUfGator]

A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that.  The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way.  But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash.  This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer.  

First off, I don't buy the explanation that the other driver was at fault, when the photos of the police car in the article show it was squarely t-boned, meaning the officer was already in front of the other vehicle at a perpendicular angle. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the t-boned car would have had the right of way over the impacting vehicle that was from the appearance of the impact damage proceeding in a straight line. If someone violated the officer's right-of-way, the officer would have hit another car, not been hit in the side. Seriously, think about that one...

And secondly, I doubt most people anticipate a police car will be barreling down Herschel street at a high rate of speed when they make a decision to pull out in traffic. And lastly, the officer was trained to drive under such conditions, the general public is not. He should have reduced his speed if he couldn't navigate the street safely.

[NotNow]

This is why the people on this site should be grateful that you two are not Police Officers.  Chris makes assumptions about the cause of a traffic crash based on a news article.  StephenDare! questions whether an Officer should respond to a bank robbery based on his assignment, not his proximity to the emergency, and both "assume" that the bank robber was dependent on a cane, when the description merely said "carrying a cane".   

[Lunican]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9-8P2AsfmzU#t=60s

[ChriswUfGator]

This is why the people on this site should be grateful that you two are not Police Officers.  Chris makes assumptions about the cause of a traffic crash based on a news article.  StephenDare! questions whether an Officer should respond to a bank robbery based on his assignment, not his proximity to the emergency, and both "assume" that the bank robber was dependent on a cane, when the description merely said "carrying a cane".    

Yes, NotNow, "an older man with a cane" is what the article said, repeating JSO's own press relese.

Sounds like you had a real John Dillinger on your hands there! I can TOTALLY see how you guys let this one get away...

I mean, seriously, doesn't it embarrass you guys at all to have to put out a BOLO because your officer got in a wreck and let an old man with a cane get away? I ought to send this one in to Jay Leno. LMFAO!

Seems like JSO needs to go to driving school...

[ChriswUfGator]

JSO's Most Wanted:

[ChriswUfGator]

So uptowngirl, what's your take on this situation then? Lol

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that.  The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way.  But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash.  This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer. 

A real genius also believes that it's the cops that instigate high-speed chases.  The criminals fleeing the scene are just caught up in the circustance that the cops start, - I wouldn't have had to flee the scene if that asshole with the blue lights didn't pull-in behind me.  Obviously it's the cop's fault everytime they try to stop someone and that person tries to run. 

[ChriswUfGator]

A real genius might check the facts of the case before making a statement like that.  The poor woman picks the wrong time to violate right-of-way.  But it gives you a chance to blame the police for causing a crash.  This was no different from the vast majority of traffic crashes and the fault and citation were given to the woman, not the Officer.

A real genius also believes that it's the cops that instigate high-speed chases.  The criminals fleeing the scene are just caught up in the circustance that the cops start, - I wouldn't have had to flee the scene if that asshole with the blue lights didn't pull-in behind me.  Obviously it's the cop's fault everytime they try to stop someone and that person tries to run.  

Of course the cops have some responsibility for high speed chases. It is a CHASE after all, which by nature means the cops are CHASING someone, doesn't it? The criminal isn't running from his own reflection in the rearview mirror, is he? My point is simply that the chase itself is generally more dangerous to the public than the criminal they're chasing.

I'm sick of reading news stories about people getting killed by these chases, once it reaches the point where their actions are creating a larger danger than they're preventing, they need to break it off. Like I said in the other thread, cops are sworn to protect public safety, their job isn't to play Terminator and hunt down every traffic violator no matter what, even if that means killing innocent members of the public, their job is to protect the public. They aren't upholding that responsibility when their actions create a greater danger than they are trying to prevent.

[Springfielder]

Correct me if I'm wrong and misread the following statement from the news report, which stated that the driver of one of the vehicles caused the accident, not the officer. "Officer Gary Ellis was responding to the call in an unmarked sports utility vehicle when police said a woman in another SUV pulled into his path, sending the officer's vehicle into yet another SUV.

None of the drivers were hurt, but the officer was shaken up. Channel 4 was told the woman in the first vehicle was cited for causing the accident."

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh, and NotNow, WTF does any of that have to do with this thread?

This thread centers on how JSO's bad driving got its officer involved in a 3-car pileup, while the elderly bank robber escaped on his cane. That isn't exactly what I would call a high-speed chase, NotNow. More like a very, very, very, very, low speed chase. Like I said, sounds like you had a real John Dillinger on your hands there, I can totally see how you let this one slip away.

But all is not lost, you may have let the bank robber escape, but at least you still managed to get involved in a 3-car pileup that endangered public safety on the way. Like I said, that is some SUPERB police work!

JSO: Still at Large;

[ChriswUfGator]

Correct me if I'm wrong and misread the following statement from the news report, which stated that the driver of one of the vehicles caused the accident, not the officer. "Officer Gary Ellis was responding to the call in an unmarked sports utility vehicle when police said a woman in another SUV pulled into his path, sending the officer's vehicle into yet another SUV.

None of the drivers were hurt, but the officer was shaken up. Channel 4 was told the woman in the first vehicle was cited for causing the accident."

Well the problem in my mind is that the photos of the damage don't line up with the claim that someone violated the officer's ROW, which sent the vehicle into another vehicle. The officer's car was t-boned at at the passenger door. The officer's story was that someone violated his right-of-way and sent his car into another car, but the damage doesn't reflect that. The damage reflects the officer being hit by another vehicle that was already up to speed and traveling in a straight line.

From the damage it seems clear the officer probably pulled out directly in front of someone, and I suspect they cited the driver for 316.126(1)(a) for failing to yield the right-of-way to a law enforcement vehicle displaying lights and siren, which for the last 3 years has become a catch-all liability shield that guarantees the other driver will always get the ticket when an LEO is involved in a wreck. Which was not the intent of the statute, but that's what it's turned into.

I will try and locate the citation on the clerk's site and see what's up...

[Springfielder]

I just watched the news video again, the woman that was cited for causing the accident, was reported to have pulled out of a parking spot, striking the officers car, which then caused him to strike another car. Look in the motor vehicle code, those pulling out from a parking spot are to look and proceed with caution, since they would then be entering into the lane of traffic: which has the right of way. The fault is clearly upon the driver who pulled out into traffic, not the officer or the other vehicle.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well I dunno, call me nuts but I have driven through there once or twice a day for 11 years now (I live in this area) and never had an accident, and I haven't had the benefit of all the professional driving training this officer had. It seems like if you're barrelling through a shopping area with a 30mph speed limit, you'd aniticipate that other people would not expect your speed and drive accordingly. And I read the article, but the damage to the vehicle seems inconsistent doesn't it? The officer's car was struck by a vehicle going much faster than parking space reverse speed.

Under 316.126 you have to admit the other guy gets cited every time an LEO is involved in a wreck. Which is a lot more often than you'd think. The officer could pretty much come sliding through your yard and hit your car in your driveway and some of these guys would still write the ticket for 316.126(1)(a). As long as the LEO had lights/siren on, they automatically have the ROW wherever, whenever, no matter how asinine their driving. It wouldn't irk me so much if that didn't become an excuse later to deny liability, but it does. I don't think the legislature anticipated how that statute would become used when they drafted it. Honestly I kind of roll my eyes every time I see "the other driver was cited for violating the officer's right of way."