that made me giggle...tou-che!

Someone needs to get thicker skin.

Comments like those posted on here are nothing. What really tests our patience and restraint is being face to face with an upstanding member of society who insists on letting us know they know their rights, we don't know who were messing with, they pay our salaries, were gonna be on the unemployment line when they get through with us and we will be sorry we messed with them....big time. We got 'em dead to rights, yet were the ones who don't know what were doing.
I would like to strongly encourage all who wish to show us how it's done to apply to their local dept. I must warn you, though...it isn't like an assembly line, there's no operation manual that explains how to perform all the functions, and no two calls are the same.
Also, if we were wrong as many times as you think we are, the jails would be empty and we really would be on the unemployment lines. It comes down to this: those who can, do; those who can't complain about those who can.

well said rexkramer

Hey Helly..guess what? He didn't make it to the accident scene because he was in his own accident. How would you feel if that was your family or loved ones who were injured and waiting for the police? Had the sign and the bridge not stopped him, then what? A lot of good he did for those victims of the accident he was responding to.
So you give ME a break!!

2Cents- it really amazes me that you can compare a person driving a civilian vehicle and taking out a sign to a police officer trying to help someone by responding to an accident!!! Give me a break!!

Good grief. Every time there's a story involving a cop the whiners come out of the woodwork. Blah, blah, blah...what if I would have done this, blah, blah, blah. Tell you what, when you folks get into an accident or maybe one of you're loved ones and God forbid someone gets hurt,I'll be willing to bet you'll want the cops there as soon as possible. Of course, you'll just come back here and complain about how long it took the cops to get there then won't you. Must be a nice view from the ivory towers folks. Quite frankly, if I was a cop and I had to read half the comments some of you people post here I'd be tempted to let you all take care of your own problems and see how you like it. Guess the next time it snows the cops should just tell everyone they're not coming because the roads are bad and they might get into an accident. Grow up folks, grow up.

I think we need to move into the robot age. Take out the human factor in all aspects of our lives. Every thing is black and white. No room for any discretion. Cameras on every street corner. Driver behaviour computers in every vehicle, etc., etc. Just be able to look at the computer and it will be clear all violators are dealt with accordingly.

I am no expert, but I think the difference in who gets a ticket is often based on property damage as well. Some of the instances I have read about here, where the offender was ticketed, include damage to personal property (mail boxes, stop signs, and business signs) whereas the BTPD officer did not damage anyone's personal property. The posted speed limit on this part of the road is 40 MPH...and that curve can only be negotiated at that speed during dry weather and when no other vehicles are passing the other way. Which makes me think that the officer would had to have been driving under 35 MPH. Unlike the officer's accident in Delavan, I feel the BTPD was right in not issuing a citation for this accident.

2cents copied: "-FOSTER AVENUE WEST OF KENNEDY ROAD, JANESVILLE, at 11:25 p.m. Friday. A car driven by Philip M. Scott, 26, of 3007 Palmer Drive, No. 12, Janesville, was westbound when he missed a curve, hit a curb, went into a parking lot, knocked down a stop sign and struck a stone landscaping wall at the Sanford Business, 2200 Foster Ave. Scott was treated at an area hospital and was cited for driving too fast for conditions."
You answered your own question. This guy completely failed to maintain control, going through not just a curb, but parking lot, sign, then hitting a retaining wall. He didn't even try to turn, he went straight, through all said obstacles, finally hitting an immoveable object. Totality of circumstances in action.
These two situations have nothing in common.

Attention Editors! and my apologies to readers for posting this here as it does not pertain to this story. I could not find a contact form for the administrator of these pages.
Why does the story 'Bible Incident Draws Concerns' still show up in the Popular Discussions list on the right side of these pages? Since the column has been blocked from further postings for weeks, it must be either because the page is getting Internet 'hits' or because of the sheer number of responses that had been posted on that topic. Either way, I believe that it should not appear on that list any longer since it gives the false impression that there is activity on that topic.

It amazes me how many people can critize the police. I agree with sttklwnjvl when they said they'd want them to respond as fast as they can if they were in an accident. What next, critize the police for driving too slow to accidents?? Give me a break!! Maybe people should be thankful that there are police officers out there who put others ahead of themselves!!!

Eh hem...public record for 1-18-08
Accidents

--FOSTER AVENUE WEST OF KENNEDY ROAD, JANESVILLE, at 11:25 p.m. Friday. A car driven by Philip M. Scott, 26, of 3007 Palmer Drive, No. 12, Janesville, was westbound when he missed a curve, hit a curb, went into a parking lot, knocked down a stop sign and struck a stone landscaping wall at the Sanford Business, 2200 Foster Ave. Scott was treated at an area hospital and was cited for driving too fast for conditions.
He failed to negotiate a curve and was cited for driving too fast for conditions.
BTPD fails to negotiate a curve but is not cited??

In regards to the BTPD officer..this is an important part to what I read..“It’s a hard curve to negotiate when it’s slippery, and his vehicle is not normally the (top-heavy) Durango." What is his NORMAL vehicle then? Perhaps one should not be driving an unfamiliar vehicle on slippery roads then.

The horse is dead. Quit beating it....lol

And please don't mention again that he wasn't going fast. He was going fast enough to go up and over a railing for crying out loud. Also, something no one else has mentioned, what is the posted speed limit out there? The article only says he was driving below the posted speed limit. So, if the speed limit is 55, he was going 54mph or under. Convenient of the pd not to release that information either.

One should not assume copperguy, for you don't know me or anything about me. First, you can't even address me correctly, my username is lierre04, there's an L in there. Second, the incident I was speaking of was 6 years ago, chances are it's off her record now anyway. Third, I am not against ALL police officers. I actually have a lot of respect for them. I have friends that are police officers. In all actuality, if an officer cannot handle going fast with his lights and sirens on, he shouldn't be driving a squad car. I'm not saying he should be suspended for the accident, afterall civilians don't lose their driving privliges for an accident, they usually get a ticket. All I'm saying is, he should have gotten ticket, paid it, learned his lesson, and everyone can move on. Also, I think your wanting to not draw this out into a long drawn out discussion has expired. I want to know, besides the three accidents you mentioned, how many accidents of similar circumstances, were issued a citation. The fact that you cannot tell me that fact, tells me you're hiding something. Do your research and be forthcoming with the facts. Or perhaps you should switch careers and become a politician.

ierre04, I did not do a statistical analysis of the police blotter. Folks have made blanket assertions that any and all civilians in that situation would have been cited. My point in mentioning the three instances was that one can not make such blanket assertions.

Unless the officer involved or the investigating deputy is the one who ticketed your friend, then do not insinuate that you know for a fact that they would have done so.

As to your friend being cited, I have not read a police or press account of the incident as I have for this one. In the interest of not getting into a drawn out discussion, I will not ask even the most obvious of questions, because it is not pertinent.

My purpose for even participating in these blogs is to help people understand 1) the law and; 2) that things are not always as black-and-white as television or people with a bone to pick make them seem.

You obviously have a bone to pick with any and all persons who are employed as police officers. That is why you choose to use an example which may or may not be based in investigative fact, and use it to impugn any officer, no matter what.

"346.57(2)
(2) Reasonable and prudent limit. No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual AND POTENTIAL hazards then existing. The speed of a vehicle shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and using due care."

I guess this would include deer also.

I meant to say you did not answer my question.

Copperguy, you didn't not answer my question. I asked how many incidents were there out of those three that you found? The reason why I ask is because if it's 3 out of 3, then you might have something. If it's 3 out of 100, I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying MOST people would get a ticket for that accident. And if I'm wrong about cops issuing tickets for unavoidable accidents, then perhaps you or another officer should go through all the accident reports with weather-related crashes, similar to this one, and return the fine paid and take points off of their record. Believe me, there are officers that do issue tickets for unavoidable accidents. One incident that I was involed in is almost exactly like this one. My friend was driving a Chevy Astro Van (also very top heavy). We stopped completely at a stop sign, and turned left. As she started accelerating, her tire hit a patch of ice that was not visible. Her van fishtailed and she over-corrected and wound up sliding into someone's front yard after hitting their mailbox. She was issued a ticket for driving too fast for conditions. Tell me how you can see a patch of black ice that is around a corner? If she deserved the ticket, then so does the Beloit officer. By the way, deer do not have anything to do with this at all, so stop using that as your examples. But for what it's worth, I drive very cautiously on the highway, especially at night, because I know there are deer out there. I'm not worried about getting a ticket for hitting a deer, I just don't want to hurt one and/or mess up my car.

ierre04, regarding the incident I spoke of where the officer crashed because the oncoming car did not yield...the point is that had the officer not been travelling at a high rate of speed, the gravel would not have caused loss of control. True, s/he couldn't do anything about the oncoming driver. Neither, though, can every driver know all of the road conditions ahead. So, to say that any driver who loses control of their vehicle deserves a citation, one must also say that the officer in my instance should have gotten a citation. As should nearly every driver in every car/deer crash.

With regard to the three cashes I found in the police blotter, all three of those were single-vehicle crashes that were at least partially caused by weather/road conditions. Same is true for the officer in this article.

Point is....things DO happen. People want to demand that police officers be able to telepathically conceive of all conditions of every inch of roadway ahead of them. That just is not possible for emergency responders any more than it is for you or the three drivers I mentioned. No one in any of the posts here has listed a single instance where the officer in the article cited a driver for a crash due to weather, where the driver otherwise had their vehicle under control. So you are wanting to hold him - and every other police officer - accountable for some theoretical officers who write tickets to civilians for crashes that they could not avoid.

Also, earlier you said that if I think the officer should have gotten a ticket, I too should make sure I get citations for every wrong doing. "If you're going to blanket demands, set an example." If officers are going to issue citations, they too, should set examples.

Copperguy, 3 instances out of how many? And in your earlier post where the cop got into an accidnet because someone from oncoming traffic didn't pull over, no, the office should not get a ticket. It is the responsibility of civilians to pull over and get out of the way when lights and sirens are going.

I just did a quick check of police blotter back through dec. 13. I found at least three instances of "accidents" where no citation was listed. All were single-vehicle crashes that seemed to be attributable to road/weather conditions.

So much for the theory that failure to have control of a vehicle in poor weather conditions ALWAYS results in a citation to the driver.

This is not directed at anyone in particular, even given the timing of it.

I do not know of a single police officer who purposely drives at any time - emergency or not - in such a way as to hope he/she gets into a crash. I don't know of any person who does so.

Crashes do happen. That is a fact of life. No matter how carefully anyone drives, there are always hazards in the roadway, vehicle malfunctions, distractions, etc..

I know of no police officer who believes that he/she is allowed to - or should - drive with egregious disregard for his/her own safety, or the safety of others.

The first rule for any emergency responder is to get there safely. And we try our darndest to get their safely but in the quickest way we can safely get there in order to help others in need.

Much has been said about officer driving. Many people have complained that any private citizen would have gotten cited. And, the pleadings and statements of outright fact will not get in the way of those who wish to take every opportunity to be critical of a police officer...ANY police officer...for ANY reason.

The fact is that given the information presented in the article, hardly ANYONE, private citizen or otherwise, would have been cited in that instance. If there were indications that he was driving 20, 30, or more miles-per-hour OVER the posted speed limit, it would be a different story. He was driving UNDER the posted speed limit because he KNEW the driving conditions. Nonetheless, he apparently came upon a patch of roadway that he could not have foreseen was particularly hazardous, even at LOWER-THAN-POSTED speeds, causing him to lose control of the vehicle.

This happens, folks. It likely has happened to nearly every single poster in this forum at some point in time. And very few officers, if ANY, would cite a driver who was driving at speeds commensurate with the driving conditions who HAPPENED to hit a very bad spot in the roadway.

Anyone who claims that "an ordinary citizen would have been cited," is quite flatly wrong and is only interested in being INAPPROPRIATELY critical and biased against every single police officer.

I am critical of cops who mess up. I do not make excuses for "bad" cops, either on- or off-duty. I live and work by very high ethical standards. But things DO happen. Criticism in this case, based on the information in the article, is just wrong.

devilsadvocate; And that is what happens 99% of the time. It's that 1% when something goes awry that we hear about. The question is: Do they deserve a citation in those circumstances? Many people would be quick to say yes without even knowing all the facts. I say the answer depends on the totality of the circumstances. And I would venture to guess that quite a few citizens do not receive citations in similar circumstances.

I am always amazed when folks post comments like "if I were injured in an accident, I would want the police to respond as fast as possible." These are usually posted following a report of a squad car crash. Wake up man. If the officer drives so fast he/she can't control the vehicle or is otherwise involved in an accident he/she won't arrive to help you. Police need to respond to emergencies in a manner and at a speed, that is commensurate with their safe arrival.

Ditto the previous three posts. A lot of times, officers will be posted in a praticular spot watching for a particular thing/person/vehicle, etc.. These are often in response to a cell phone caller reporting erratic driving, etc.. This sometimes falls under the category of mutual aid to the county, etc., and may or may not involve the use of radar. I have often heard people talking of a particular officer running radar at a certain time, when in reality that officer was doing just the sort of "attempt to locate" that I am talking about.

miyata312; re: the radar. instead of just wondering about it it, why don't you just call and speak with the chief or town administrator? You might get the answer you seek.

As far as "Seen another one this summer running lights heading north between Blackhawk Tech and 351 and FLYING no less." There could be a myriad of reasons for that, ie request for mutual aid, problems with a prisoner being transported, etc., etc..

But again, instead of just wondering about it why not call and ask. I'm sure someone would be happy to explain it to you.

...To assist another officer/department who needs backup in an Emergency; during a close/fresh pursuit or when something major happens we can and do cross into another jurisdiction to apprehend and/or assist. That should explain the flying and lights/siren. As far as running radar, it would be in TOB jurisdiction or through a joint enforcement effort with the agency who has jurisdiction there.

Miyata,

Beloit Township will back up Rock County if they need the help.

Copper, so according to that map, their NE boundry is Townline and Prairie. I'm trying to figure out why then I seen one of their cars running radar near Janesville. Seen another one this summer running lights heading north between Blackhawk Tech and 351 and FLYING no less.

The officer in the accident was responding to a call. He was driving with his siren and emergency lights on. It is unfortunate that he lost control of the vehicle, but if you were lying in a puddle of blood and trapped, wouldn't you want him to get there as soon as possible? These guys risk their lives doing a dangerous job to help others and all you can think of is giving him a ticket? Stop and think about it.

Bel: He could've been misquoted. If so, what do you think he MEANT to say?

Not to take away from the new guy, but Gomer Pyle would have looked good after the former chief--another example of someone who was there too long, but was able to stay there anyway because of the good ol' boy system. Not unlike what seems to be at play in Milton. I was actually impressed with Wilson at first. But, a fine wine turns sour, once exposed to the air. Wilson's illegal tow policy will eventually cost your city some money in a future lawsuit; not if, but when. And then his spin on this accident issue. His intentions are good, but again, like Milton, good intentions don't make something legal. And btw, I honestly intend no disrespect to any of the people discussed here; my comments are intended to address the issues, not the person.

Or maybe, just maybe, the Chief was mis-quoted or his comment was taken out of context? Oh wait, that NEVER happens in interviews...lol.

BTW, what happened to the article about the Delavan officer that wasn't ticketed but caused an accident? There wasn't much outrage over that one compared to this. That officer injured two people. Officer Luzinski was responding to a call and only injured the squad.

It doesn't sound like people like the township police. I've lived in BT for about 30 years and I couldn't be happier with the changes Chief Wilson has made within the department. I feel safe at home and I love the increased patrol on my road, which is heavily traveled. I'm the mom of 4 kids and it's nice to know that drivers are slowing down when my kids are out waiting for the bus.

I'm not criticizing law enforcement. However, like Professor, I think there is something left to be desired in the chief's candor, by trying to tell the public that his boy did nothing wrong because he was going under the speed limit. Maybe that's another thing--along w/the illegal towing policy--that he should leave in Illinois, and wake up with Wisconsin's law??? Hi chief!

Not every instance of a crash involving weather will get a citation. If there isn't any property damage or injury to others they may just let you off knowing you just caused yourself a lot of headaches with a wrecked vehicle anyway. All of you who I see criticize law enforcement are forgetting one thing. He was responding to a traffic accident. The article did not say if it was serious or not, so assume that it was. If it was one of you that is always complaining about law enforcement you would have complained if he had not driven there quickly enough and someone (god forbid) died because of that. Don't be so quick to judge and slam law enforcement!

miyata...here's a link to a map of the Town of Beloit.

http://68.249.68.135/realprop/townships/...

Exactly how far does the township of Beloit PD have jurisiction for? I've seen them out by the power plant, near 351 on Prairie Ave running radar about a mile south of 351, townline rd on the east side of I90 and now down by 81 & Paddock. Why not just paint their cars beige and put Rock Co Sheriff decals on them.

Gee wouldnt that be driving to fast for conditions. he shold get a citation just like all the rest of us.

I just think that the officer should have used better judgment. It's winter in Wisconsin and you're going down a curvy road, you slow down a bit. It's better to get there a minute later than not at all. I don't know, maybe the accident was enough "punishment" and he will learn his lesson. Or perhaps I just get the "green" officers each time I'm pulled over and a bit resentful when they don't get tickets. Nevertheless, everyone, including police officers, should slow down, not just to avoid a ticket, but to stay safe, especially in the winter.

Also, ierre04, I take issue with your flat assertion that "in most cases, a citation would be issued." You are making that assumption because you want to believe the officer should be cited. I speak with absolute confidence when I say that, based upon the information in the article, VERY FEW officers would have written a citation to a civilian in exactly the same situation (except their emergency lights and siren would not have been on). If an officer tells you "Absolutely, I would have written Joe Citizen a ticket under those circumstances, no question," either that officer is real green or has some other issue.

Of all the crashes I have investigated, I have issued a citation in one instance due to the egregious disregard the cited driver showed for others on or near the roadway. This, of course, with the exception of OWI or driver status (suspended/revoked, etc.).

Over the years I've had my occasions with traffic stops. I have learned from some who did not write me a ticket, and vice versa.
Stop me and say "you were speeding" and write me a ticket and then I pay the ticekt, what did I learn.
Explain to me why speeding in this area is bad with a good example and I might see the reason for not speeding. I've had both happen and can still remember the ones who talked to me, and forgot the ones who did not.
As a group Police are a good judge of a person. I think them using judgement is a pretty good idea.

And that would come under totality of the circumstances. Exactly right.

No police officer can speak to the policies, procedures, and practices of every department and every officer. It may be the practice of one agency to always write a citation at every crash, but I would find such an assertion suspect.

Also, I think that this may have had a different outcome had the investigating officer found 80 feet of yaw (skid) marks, for example. Or had the officer had oncoming traffic. All go to the totality of the circumstances.

I am aware of an officer who was responding to an emergency call, with lights and siren working, driving at a high rate of speed. An oncoming car failed to yield the right-of-way (as seen on in-car video), and the officer had to swerve to the gravel shoulder. The gravel caused him to lose control of the vehicle, and he crashed. Fortunately, he was not injured. Under your application of the law, he should have been cited for failure to maintain control, even though the other driver caused him to take evasive action. Right?

BTW...the other vehicle and driver were never identified.

A police officer once informed me that if there is an accident and there is someone at fault, they will get a ticket. If no tickets are issued and whomever it is that looks at the accident reports can clearly see someone is at fault, it's a whole lot of paperwork to issue the citation after the fact. This officer was at fault, damages exceeded (I'm assuming) $1000, and in most cases, a citation would be issued. I've gotten pulled over a handful of times and each time I received a ticket, deservingly so. And you know what? I've learned my lesson and I drive a lot more carefully now. Tickets, as much of a pain as they are, can be a good thing. They tell you many things including "you're going too fast, you could kill yourself or someone else." I'm sure if the accident involved a civilian getting hurt or killed, you'd all be looking at things a little differently.

Another news story that isnt worth the cost of printing.

Agreed. There arent enough hours in the day to cite every moving violation or DOT code we encounter each shift. Our discretion is what determines who gets a ticket or not, based on the totality of the circumstances at the scene, not just the action (speeding, reckless driving, etc.) observed. Hard for some to believe but most officers have written more fix-it tickets and warnings than citations. Copperguy has it exactly right when he stated that just stopping the action in question (being pulled over) is usually enough to dissolve the problem. If it isn't, we'll see the same person doing the same thing again, at which time we issue a ticket. That's discretion, and we use it more often than the public realizes.
Careful what you wish for.

......I'd head South after the first snow and not come back untill summer school

Don;t know where my mind went in that post...meant to ask...To bad "for" you?!?!?!?!

I think you and I are in agreement on many subjects. Too bad your you?!?!?!

I also would not have cited the school bus driver, based on the limited information in the story. However, if ALL violations must be cited, and the driver must drive in such a way that the vehicle is abolutely under control at tall times.............

I wouldn't have cited the bus driver. What I was trying to emphasize is the publics' perception and elicit comments from the non police officers as to how they would handle such situations. I'm on your side.

heat: that, again, is somewhat subjective. The officer considers the "totality of the circumstances." And, yes, that is where people will claim favoritism, cronyism, etc.. Officer discretion is, though, a fact of life. As you noted in an earlier post, it's part of the "human equation." Again, many people would not want officers to lose all discretionary ability. Society wouldn't like the results.

Check out the link below. Should the school bus driver have been cited for that crash?

http://themonroetimes.com/main.asp?Secti...

"Sometimes the immediate result of the offense is the only deterrent that is needed."

Copperguy, how is that determination made?

That seems to be the underlying question, (and cause of much controversy) of many citizens.

Bottom line, lierre04, you did miss the point of my earlier post. You say that "tickets are issued when you break the law." Many people in life use hyperbole to emphasize a point. What you are implying is that tickets are ALWAYS issued when you break the law. The point of my earlier post is that tickets are NOT ALWAYS issued when you break the law. And a good many people would agree that they should not ALWAYS be. If you think that EVERY violation deserves a citation, I think you are in a very, very small minority.

Read police blotter. Many, many times there are listing of crashes where no citation was issued. As I said in my earlier post, using your theory that ALL violations should receive a citation, then all those folks who hit deer should be cited. Even when the deer hits them. If they had been paying closer attention to the area adjacent to the roadway, they could have avoided the collision.

Are you seriously stating that ALL violations should be cited? If so, then how about having an officer give your vehicle and all of your family members' vehicles a thorough equipment and safety check, looking at all requirements of statutes and Transportation codes? And, demand a citation for all defects. You might be surprised.

If you want to make blanket demands, then set the example.

If every police officer wrote a ticket for every single violation they see or hear about, people would complain about the hard-nosed and ridiculous cops.

One of the most important lessons in law enforcement education (indeed in life), is that not every wrong should be punished. Sometimes the immediate result of the offense is the only deterrent that is needed. That's why many traffic crashes do not result in a citation being issued, and why sometimes traffic stops result only in a warning.

Bottom line is that police officers can do no right. If someone dies because the responding officer drives the speed limit, obeys stop signs/lights, etc., then the cop is responsible for the death. If the officer does take advantage of the statute permitting him/her to violate the traffic laws, and some unforseen situation has the officer get into a crash, then the officer is abusing his/her authority.

I know an officer who worked in a small village. He saw a group of folks (14-70's in age) having a party in their yard. As he was driving by on patrol, he stopped and wished the honoree a safe tour of duty in Iraq. Next day, the officer was reprimanded by his chief because the kid going away complained saying the cop was wanting to catch under age drinkers. Same cop now hesitates to even wave to others who wave at him. Either way, he's damned. If he doesn't return the wave, he's snobby or on a power trip. If he does wave, someone will complain that he wasn't watching the road or strictly in control of his vehicle (i.e., with both hands on the wheel).

Cops can't win. They're always wrong until someone else needs them. Even then, they're only playing favorites!

I tthink YOU are missing the point of some of these posts' lierre04. How many times COULD you or your husband have been ticketed but were not? Are you saying that EVERY time you or he violates the the law you or he should be ticketed? If so, please do the right thing and turn yourself in after every violation. The world will be a safer place and I thank you for it.

I think some of you are missing the bigger picture here. Tickets are issued when you break the law. Laws are in place for a reason. When you're driving too fast for conditions you're putting yourself and others at risk. Had this police officer gotten into a worse accident and was seriously injured or had died, we'd now have a house fire AND an injured or dead police officer. When my husband got a ticket for speeding (it was extremely excessive) I told him he was lucky he only got a ticket, it could have been much worse. So you see, tickets also can be like a warning as well. He should have gotten a ticket.

You said it best, copperguy.

And, no I'm not a cop. But I prefer the human element rather than the alternative.

This is always a divided issue; cops vs citizens; us vs them. But it's not so black and white. For all of you who think it is, think about this. The technology now exists that would allow all of you to be monitored in all of your actions. That includes driving and personal life. Would you submit to allow such technology to monitor and ticket / arrest / correct any behaviour deemed contrary to society standards. Because if not, then just how do you propose to remove the human factor and still achieve the idealistic goals you seem to propose to in this blog? Just curious.

As when anyone asks me about a news story involving law enforcement or other judgement issues, my response is always, "I don't know the whole story, so I can't make a judgement." Maybe that sounds like (for lack of a better phrase), a "cop-out." But it's the truth.

Police officers handle cases based upon the totality of the circumstances. Yes, some drivers in crashes do get tickets. Others do not. The handling officer takes a number of factors into consideration. Weather, road conditions, driver condition, vehicle condition, traffic patterns, and many other factors are iunvolved in the decision making process.

Yes, statutes do require public safety officials and every other driver to exercise due regard. Using that definition strictly, many more drivers could be cited than actually are. There's the subjective consideration of reasonableness. Was the driver operating the vehicle reasonably...that is, with a valid reason. This is true not just for public safety officials, but for the general motoring public as well. That explains why all motorists involved in crashes do not receive citations.

When lives are in danger, and a police, fire, or ems official is responding to a potentially life-threatening situation, the reason (reasonableness) for the increased speed, etc., is the need to save life and limb. It is a fact that any emergency response involving emergency lights and/or siren causes a certain level of danger to those not involved. People who are lawfully trying to get out of the way, looking at the emergency vehicles, or distracted by the lights/siren, all present an increased hazard.

Many, many drivers have, at one point or another, had a "close call," where they were not strictly in control of their vehicle or not paying total attention to their surroundings but avoided a crash or slide off just by luck or because no vehicle or person happened to be in their way. Those who haven't had this experience probably will at some point. Even those involved in car vs. deer crashes should be cited for not paying closer attention to the sides of the road.

To say that a police officer responding to an emergency call, driving on a sparsely-travelled road, late at night, under the posted speed limit, who happened to hit an icy spot on the road causing him/her to lose control of the vehicle should automatically be ticketed just is grasping at straws to be critical to further some biased viewpoint.

Many - if not most - police officers would not hesitate to cite or even arrest a fellow officer if that person, either on- or off-duty, responding to a call or just driving around the block, showed utter disregard for the safety of others. And rightfully so.

That's funny. The Town of Beloit thinks they've got such a great set of statistics for their law enforcement. Now, any and all of the publicity they've gotten recently has been negative. Officers screwing up is not surprising at all, at least not to me. That PD is just as bad if not worse than any other local municipality. It's going to get worse. The Town of Beloit needs some changing all around.

ok perfect example of cop letting cop off the entire Milton incident. Little favortism there.

If you are at a stop sign on duty, and pull out in front of someone for some reason and cause a accident. You legally can be ticketed.

You are at fault it that situation.

You are not exempt. Not much is usually made of it because we are all so used to cops thinking they are exempt but that would be incorrect.

Good one, Killah.
Good example of your complete lack of knowledge about LE, pat. Yes, we can and do receive tickets in civilian cars. Would I write a ticket to one of my back scratchers? It depends...on what I stopped him for. Same as when I stop you. Some back scratchers in my county have received tickets off duty. We poke fun at them...alot, and they don't fight the fines, they pay them. We're not all Barney Fyfe, in uniform 24/7, flaunting the shield. We're dressed in civilian clothes driving home and if were going 20 over, we deserve the fine, same as you. That's not to say there isn't a brotherhood and we do defend one another. But when a traffic violation is observed by an officer, we have no business questioning his/her judgement on their stop when we know we were speeding (or whatever the stop is for), and the career of the vehicle operator is not the criteria on which we base the issueing of a citation.

HA!

I'm glad he's ok, but that did make me laugh!

He should have gotten a ticket. It would teach him a valuable lesson. Responding to a call for help drive slowly and carefully so ya don't get a ticket.

That would teach me a lesson too! When the tones go off and someone needs the ambulance because they can't breathe or their child is in distress the first thing on my mind should be how I don't want to have to pay a ticket.

Oh Baloney. Officers on duty CAN be ticketed or Prosecuted regardless if they are on duty or not. To say they can't be is so far wrong.

It does not happen often but it does happen. Just because someone has a badge does not give them a free pass.

That is whats wrong is police officers, SOME of them believe they can do what they want.

Because of that badge.

Nope sorry folks , officers have and can be ticketed on duty or off.

** some one might want to tell them.

Oh come on . Police are notorious on or off duty. You scratch my back I will scratch yours.

A off duty police officer can be going 75 mph down the highway and get stopped for speeding.

" Well officer friendly, I am a officer in ___
yeah I should know better."

' yeah ok, slow it down.

Later he stops Joe Smoe for speeding as well and tickets him.

It happens all the time.

You want to know what would happen if he is issued a ticket? He'll pay it, just like you would, pat.
Are you implying, pat, that each time a vehicle run-off occurs there is a citation issued? If so, you'ld be incorrect about that as well.
Those who have no idea what our duties/responsibilities are, let alone how to effectively perform them, are also the most critical.

And, while much is made of it when an officer doesn't get a ticket, there are a lot of citizens who also do not get tickets under similar circumstances. (and yes there are a lot that do) It's all a part of the human equation.

Wisconsin state law doesnt require a ticket to be written here. It is the officers call of writing a ticket who is on the call. Police officers do a lot of driving than anyone else and are likely to be in more car accidents.

""Police Chief John Wilson said. “It wasn’t too much speed. He was below the posted speed limit.” ""

Hmmmmmmmm I am sure the Chief realizes that the "speed to fast for conditions" section requires the operator of the vehicle to drive at a speed commensurate with the conditions then and there existing. If a speed of 5 mph is required, to avoid sliding off the roadway, then that is the speed the law expects one to drive. Many ordinary folks, involved in winter accidents, have been ticketed under this section.

Now comes the question did the red lights and siren absolve him of responsibility? Not really, the red lights and siren warn the public of the impending approach of an emergency vehicle but also require the operator of the emergency vehicle to drive with due regard for road conditions and others using the highway.

I, too, might react cynically to the Chief's comment that it "wasn't speed, he was going below the speed limit"--especially when the deputy reports 'failing to have control' as a contributing factor. That would absolutely meet the criteria for a violation of section 346.57(2) of the Wisconsin State Statutes. That provision states: "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual and poetential hazards then existing. The speed of a vehicle shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and using due care." The next paragraph in the statutes then specifically requires reduced speed to accomodate curves and weather conditions, among other things.

So, the chief is being somewhat disingenuous when he stated, 'it wasn't too much speed...he was below the speed limit.' Fixed/posted limits are 'trumped', if you will, by evironmental or other conditions that make driving at that speed limit unsafe.

My question, seeing that it is the Town of Beloit, is whether or not they towed the vehicle???? :-) But, absent any other evidence in this case, I would trust the investigating deputy's conclusions as to whether or not a citation should have issued.

P.S. It is true that officers are authorized to--for lack of a better word--'break' traffic laws when responding to a bona-fide emergency. However, such authority "does not relieve such [officer] from the duty to drive or ride with due regard under the circumstances for the safety of all persons...or the consequences of his or her reckless disregard for the safety of others." See section 346.03

reader1 and sttldwnjvl both have good points. He had his sirens and lights on. He wasn't an average citizen at that time. Police have rights to drive extraordinarily while on duty, within certain guidelines, of course. People shouldn't be so quick to hop on the fairness bandwagon when we're talking about responding to an emergency call. He was doing his job. So everyone drive safely today--the snow's coming down!

A ticket??? He had his lights and siren on! Police risk their own lives everyday to help other people. Here he was responding to an emergency call. Why would he get a ticket? He did nothing wrong. He wasn't driving crazy, or too fast. Ever think maybe he had tweleve things going on at once, a police radio to listen to and talk in to, a computer he had to pay attention to, plus driving in bad weather. And not everyone gets a ticket when their involved in an accident. Sometimes accidents just happen, that's why they're called accidents. Lights and siren mean he actually CAN go fast - although from the sounds of this that wasn't even the case in this situation. How many slid off's do the Police go to every year??? Hundreds I bet - I also am willing to bet the majority of those people DO NOT get ticketed. Give this guy a break - he was doing his job.

He is a police officer that was responding to an accident. I would want the police to come as fast as they could if it were me; and not in fear of getting a ticket.

So how did the accident he was responding to turn out? No Officer involved, so not newsworthy?

Why was a ticket not issued? Anyone else would have been ticketed for driving to fast for conditions.

even he says he ' failed to have control'

glad he is ok, but fair is fair.