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

[NotNow]

Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area?  You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"?  Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?  

Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks.  I was not the source.  

As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements.  Perhaps you could point that out?

As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing.  I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.

[ChriswUfGator]

almost on a daily basis I see idiots that do not pull over or try to race ahead of one of the firetrucks  from Station 1 or the Duece. Should the firemen not race to fires?

What does that have to do with anything, exactly?

So you see a difference between emergency vehicles taking the right of way with lights and sirens?

Fire truck/ambulance=OK, police cruiser = not OK?

Pardon me, but I'm not seeing a steady stream of deaths caused by high-speed ambulance chases in the news.

[ChriswUfGator]

Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area?  You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"?  Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?  

Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks.  I was not the source.  

As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements.  Perhaps you could point that out?

As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing.  I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.

Jesus Christ, you just did it again, posting in the thread without bothering to read. You really don't learn do you?

I just posted the controlling cases for you from westlaw, since I figured you would need assistance. Exactly as I said, rebuttable presumption of negligence when a traffic law was violated. Doesn't rise to negligence per se, but it's not peanuts either. Why don't you read before spouting off next time?

[NotNow]

The "highlights" are impressing the maturity into future Officers of the gravity of emergency driving.  Typically, more Officers are killed in traffic crashes than gunfire incidents each year.  Real incidents from Jacksonville are reviewed.  Legal liabilities are discussed by State Attorney's representatives and they emphasize the liabilty of the Officer.  Driving focuses on REAL driving in REAL conditions, not movie stunt driving.  Again, I can not cover weeks of training here.

Also in real life, no one knows the danger of irresponsible driving like Police Officers.  They see the carnage on an almost daily basis.  Young Officers learn to slow down and "get there".  Much like the effects of gunfire, or war for soldiers, nothing will teach you like being there.

Officers are subject to the same traffic laws as anyone else.  They are allowed to ignore those laws while using "due regard" and utilizing visual and audio alerts to the public when responding to an emergency.  That said, many Officers find that "lights and sirens" confuse many people and prefer to drive as fast as possible within the law.  Many will stop at a red light, then proceed when safe while doing this.  I have done this many times myself in Springfield and DT as I thought it was faster and safer than utilizing lights and sirens.  It is, of course, against policy and an Officer would be cited if involved in an accident doing this and would face administrative sanction as well for the violation of policy.  

I appreciate the reasonable response.  I don't see any reason to respond to silliness.

Thanks for the insight, notnow.  Your expertise and knowledge are appreciated.

I actually did not know that more officers were killed in traffic accidents than by gunfire, but it doesnt surprise me at all.

As a personal choice I prefer not to drive.  I was in a couple of accidents a few years back, fairly serious experience which I feel certain exhausted at least seven of my natural life entitlements, and the dangers of the road are giant in my mind.

Wouldnt want to also negotiate having to get through traffic with a life or death situation adding pressure to the sense of hurry.

On a side not I actually had a great experience with a JSO this past weekend.  People who know me personally know that although I go out to clubs and restaurants and events on a pretty nightly basis, I very rarely drink alcohol.  Im not a tee totaller, but Im just not very enthusiastic about the effects of alcohol compared to the far more pleasurable effects of caffeine.

As a result, I am often the designated driver for close friends, which I don't mind doing.

So I was driving a childhood friend who is also an episcopal priest home after making the rounds on King Street (great time at Intuition Ale Works) when we were pulled over.

Since I don't drive that often, I frequently leave my driver's liscense at home, so I felt sure I was going to be ticketed.  As it happens, Father Rick's birthday was December 12th, and as such his plates were expired which he didnt realize, and I certainly didnt when I agreed to DD.

When the cop (a young guy) realized that I was DD he simply let us go with the advisement to immediately renew the plates.

It ended up being a helpful and pleasant stop rather than a ticket and an attitude.  Very appreciative.

I'm glad that you had a positive experience.  I believe that the vast majority of interaction with JSO leaves folks in the same frame of mind.  

[ChriswUfGator]

Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area?  You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"?  Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!? 

Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks.  I was not the source. 

As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements.  Perhaps you could point that out?

As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing.  I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.

Wow, awesome, so after you write whatever ticket you're going to write, I didn't realize that you got to work on a civil lawsuit stemming from the accident? Or that you're apparently also the insurance adjuster who determines fault according to the policy? Or that apparently you're more of an expert on the subject of whether a statute violation constitutes a rebuttable showing of negligence than the Florida District Courts of Appeal? Amazing! You are a regular renaissance man. Apparently we should elect you governor and fire the rest of the state government, and all the judges.

[NotNow]

316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street".  Why do you make such things up?  What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer? 

Here is the actual statute language:


Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter

316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
—
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.

(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:

1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.

2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.

(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.

This section does 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 highway.

(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.

(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.

(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.

(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.

(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).

History.—s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.



Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard".  At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices. 

Have you ever actually read this statute?  JSO Officers are drilled with it. 

Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this.  JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training.  ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject. 

Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...

Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.

I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.

You only posted paragraph 1a in reply #17.  Kind of leaves out some important facts in my eyes.

[NotNow]

Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area?  You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"?  Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!? 

Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks.  I was not the source. 

As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements.  Perhaps you could point that out?

As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing.  I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.

Wow, awesome, so after you write whatever ticket you're going to write, I didn't realize that you got to work on a civil lawsuit stemming from the accident? Or that you're apparently also the insurance adjuster who determines fault according to the policy? Or that apparently you're more of an expert on the subject of whether a statute violation constitutes a rebuttable showing of negligence than the Florida District Courts of Appeal? Amazing! You are a regular renaissance man. Apparently we should elect you governor and fire the rest of the state government, and all the judges.

I am just stating what I have done.  What have you done?

[NotNow]

Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area?  You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"?  Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!?  

Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks.  I was not the source.  

As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements.  Perhaps you could point that out?

As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing.  I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.

Jesus Christ, you just did it again, posting in the thread without bothering to read. You really don't learn do you?

I just posted the controlling cases for you from westlaw, since I figured you would need assistance. Exactly as I said, rebuttable presumption of negligence when a traffic law was violated. Doesn't rise to negligence per se, but it's not peanuts either. Why don't you read before spouting off next time?

Hmm...perhaps you should check with the FHP and request their records on citations written to law enforcement in accidents.  Might shake up your beliefs a bit.

[ChriswUfGator]

316.126 does NOT allow Officers to "zoom through a crowded street".  Why do you make such things up?  What is your source that the civilian driver always gets cited when involved in an accident with an Officer?  

Here is the actual statute language:


Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter

316.126Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle.
â€"
(1)
(a)Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle, while en route to meet an existing emergency, the driver of every other vehicle shall, when such emergency vehicle is giving audible signals by siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device, or visible signals by the use of displayed blue or red lights, yield the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle and shall immediately proceed to a position parallel to, and as close as reasonable to the closest edge of the curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any law enforcement officer.

(b)When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe:

1.Shall vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle or wrecker when driving on an interstate highway or other highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle or wrecker, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer. If such movement cannot be safely accomplished, the driver shall reduce speed as provided in subparagraph 2.

2.Shall slow to a speed that is 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or greater; or travel at 5 miles per hour when the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour or less, when driving on a two-lane road, except when otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.

(c)The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall provide an educational awareness campaign informing the motoring public about the Move Over Act. The department shall provide information about the Move Over Act in all newly printed driver’s license educational materials after July 1, 2002.

This section does 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 highway.

(2)Every pedestrian using the road right-of-way shall yield the right-of-way until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by any police officer.

(3)Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.

(4)Nothing herein contained shall diminish or enlarge any rules of evidence or liability in any case involving the operation of an emergency vehicle.

(5)This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.

(6)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as either a moving violation for infractions of subsection (1) or subsection (3), or as a pedestrian violation for infractions of subsection (2).

History.â€"s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 84-204; s. 122, ch. 99-248; s. 2, ch. 2002-217; s. 2, ch. 2004-20; s. 3, ch. 2009-183.



Contrary to your claims, Officers are found at fault when they do not show "due regard".  At JSO, this means slowing or stopping at intersections until you are sure that there is no oncoming traffic among many other practices.  

Have you ever actually read this statute?  JSO Officers are drilled with it.  

Again, police pursuits are much more complicated than can be covered in a forum such as this.  JSO Officers receive literally weeks of classroom on the subject, then at least a week of emergency driving, and are drilled on the subject during their field training.  ALL Officers are constantly graded and trained in this subject.  

Thank you for idiotically regurgitating the very same statute that, in some twist of logic that only NotNow could manage, I am totally unfamiliar with yet I actually had already posted earlier in this very same thread! Imagine that! So as usual, NotNow jumps in to serve as a walking talking demonstation of why you should actually read before posting. I guess you're doing your best to lead by example, the old saying didn't say it had to be a good example. But I digress...

Regarding the statute, the portions you highlighted comport with my point exactly. The LEO is automatically presumed to have the ROW at any time his lights/siren are on. Regarding the part about "due care" that's a term of art that I doubt most drivers in traffic court are familiar with, and it certainly doesn't stop you guys from writing citations for this all the time.

I'll tell you what. If you want to really make this into an experiement, I can always send another PR request to JSO today for all citations issued for 316.126(1)(a) in the last 36 months and for the total number of JSO-involved traffic accidents in the last 36 months, and then we can put an actual percentage onto this problem. I'm already requesting the other driver's information and plan on getting her take on this incident. So what say you as to that? I suppose I should forewarn you that, if I go to that kind of trouble, then I'm going to write an article on this statute's misuse by JSO for the front page of MetroJacksonville, and I'm going to credit you for suggesting the idea. So as long as you're onboard I'll send it out today.

You only posted paragraph 1a in reply #17.  Kind of leaves out some important facts in my eyes.

Fair enough.

I was just attempting to point out that Florida law grants an LEO the ROW over other traffic when the LEO has his lights/siren activated. I don't think the rest of the statute really changes that one way or the other, so I didn't include it. I wasn't trying to leave anything out intentionally.

[ChriswUfGator]

Soooo, you actually have no real experience in this area?  You have no source for your blanket statements that Officers are "never found at fault"?  Your dinner parties are with JC and StephenDare!? 

Looking back through the thread, I do see several personal attacks.  I was not the source. 

As for your "google search", I didn't find any evidence supporting your statements.  Perhaps you could point that out?

As for "actual knowledge of the subject matter"...I have been the primary Officer in all of the subjects that we are discussing.  I don't claim to be the smartest guy, or that I am always right, but I have been down this road a few times.

Jesus Christ, you just did it again, posting in the thread without bothering to read. You really don't learn do you?

I just posted the controlling cases for you from westlaw, since I figured you would need assistance. Exactly as I said, rebuttable presumption of negligence when a traffic law was violated. Doesn't rise to negligence per se, but it's not peanuts either. Why don't you read before spouting off next time?

Hmm...perhaps you should check with the FHP and request their records on citations written to law enforcement in accidents.  Might shake up your beliefs a bit.

You might be right, do you guys get cited a lot when this stuff happens?

FWIW, I'm not being sarcastic, I just honestly don't know. I think we've all seen cops run lights and nearly cause wrecks, or in some cases cause wrecks, but I am not real familiar with what happens to the officer afterwards.

[NotNow]

That...is....what....I....have.....been....saying.....all.....along.   Yes, Officers ARE cited for such violations during pursuits.  It happens quite often.  I encourage you to obtain and study the JSO general order on pursuit policy.

I also think that we have all seen Officers approach lights with lights and sirens on safely, slowing to insure traffic is clear before proceeding.  And I hear pursuits on the radio being called off by the initiating Officer or a supervisor every single day.

[ChriswUfGator]

Lol, probably nothing to do with this Gary Ellis. Since after all, they did actually catch this one...

[gatorback]

Of course She's to blame.