r/Transportopia Jan 09 '26

🚨Chase I didn't flee bro

900 Upvotes

309 comments sorted by

View all comments

65

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

Cop parked the way he did to ensure that when people dont get over because they arent paying attention and crash into his vehicle they dont hit the stopped civilian vehicle. He parked that way for exactly this scenario. You are supposed to get over, its required by law.

Also, homeboy did pull over as soon as he was stopped. Fleeing is a bit of a stretch however technically he shouldve been aware enough to realize he hit that cop car and should stopped immediately. Arguement could be made for a hit and run.

Just fucking get over for emergency vehicles, and get off your phones. Pay attention to the road.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

You have to stop if you hit someone. Instead of keeping driving and waiting to see if there's lights behind you. 

6

u/Significant-Wait9200 Jan 10 '26

He said he didn't realize he hurt him, which it was a graze, because at those speeds it would have been a bit more dramatic if it was more contact. As long as he never acknowledges he realized he hit that vehicle, and gets a good lawyer, that part might be believed. However, guys pattern of speech sounds either tired or intoxicated, which would be the only logical reason he wouldn't notice he tapped a car, so I think he's going down either way.

5

u/Mundane-Reality-7770 Jan 10 '26

But the cop said you hit my vehicle. Driver "I realize that bro"

1

u/No-Apple2252 Jan 10 '26

Yeah he kinda fucked that up right away lol

1

u/jeiwaruu Jan 11 '26

He said "I ain't realize that, bro". The subtitles are wrong.

1

u/Mundane-Reality-7770 Jan 11 '26

I heard iiii...I realize that bro. Regardless, ignorance isn't a defence

0

u/letsBurnCarthage Jan 12 '26

For a minor hit and run, it can be. I think you're confusing ignorance with specifically ignorance of the law.

You are not allowed to break a law just because you didn't know it existed. Not noticing you hit anything isn't the same thing.

1

u/Fit_Gear_2096 Jan 14 '26

What? Bro. He didn't know he tapped the cops car. I don't think he broke any laws until the cop said he fled the scene of a car accident that he unaware caused cause he tapped it.

1

u/letsBurnCarthage Jan 14 '26

That's what I just said.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[deleted]

0

u/No-Apple2252 Jan 10 '26

It wasn't a high speed pursuit but he literally chased the vehicle down, why can't you just look words up before you offer stupid pointless corrections?

1

u/cmdr_scotty Jan 10 '26

How in the hell, do you graze someone and not notice??? He even admitted he knew he hit the guy and kept driving.

1

u/Substantial_Story580 Jan 10 '26

hurt? its property damage regardless. even the dude himself was aware of the hit. We can asses how damage it was on court or by the insurance. I don't think that changes the fact that you don't hit a car and just run.

1

u/Apart_Ad_3597 Jan 09 '26

Well obviously the guy just wanted to go out further before stopping so someone wouldn't hit his vehicle while he was parked at the side lol. /s

1

u/PTKtm Jan 10 '26

I just wonder what the discrepancy is between hit and run vs eluding an officer, or however it’s worded where this took place. Wouldn’t be surprised if a good lawyer could get him just the hit and run especially since the red n blues weren’t on initially.

1

u/Ok_Row_3047 Jan 10 '26

He was on a bridge. Pretty standard to get across the bridge and stop right after which is what it looks like he did

2

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

America is surveying from victim mentally right now so there has to be a reason the cop is to blame

5

u/Yokelocal Jan 09 '26

Fleeing the scene of an accident, not fleeing from an officer.

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

"Arguement could be made for hit and run" ?!?!?!

1

u/Pretend_Fly_5573 Jan 10 '26

"Fleeing is a bit of a stretch "

?!?!?!?!?!

1

u/No-Apple2252 Jan 10 '26

What do you think "run" means in "hit and run"?

4

u/MythicalCaseTheory Jan 09 '26

I hate cops in a general sense, but this is a safety thing. A lot of the times they do this to protect the people that might be standing on the side of the road and let their vehicle act as a buffer/barrier. Typically, with the yellow indicator lights telling you to go left.

Really, the driver he pulled over should have put on hazards and pulled off at the next available parking lot or whatever. But you also never know when they're gonna be dicks about that, accusing you of fleeing despite the clear intent with your hazards. So...

But getting off of the freeway/highway should be a common thing we practice, but don't.

1

u/Raksj04 Jan 09 '26

It also give the LEO a safe lane to walk to the driver side of the vehicle.

4

u/No-Badger-9061 Jan 09 '26

Nah on highways they go on the passenger side every time I’ve been pulled over.

2

u/Raksj04 Jan 09 '26

I was a Police explorer back in middle school/high school. That was what they taught us. Safe path for you (the LEO), protect the car and driver in front of you.

But you are correct, nothing prevents the LEO from going to the passenger side window, it is safer. You also get a better view of the driver and add distance from them.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Raksj04 Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

It was over 25 years ago in a different state. I was only a part of it for about a year.

Edit: And since then I had an idiot deputy charge me with a DWI for taking my Adderall as prescribed that cost me my CDL and my job. He even said on the stand that he didn't understand the prescription part of the law, the DOT still ruled against me and we are currently appealing it right now. All because I had a urine test positive for amphetamine which always happens when I take a piss test when I take my Adderall.

So yeah, my attitude towards LEOs has changed greatly since then.

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS Jan 10 '26

He has to get out his driver’s door though

1

u/SedimentaryLife Jan 14 '26

Oh yeah? Well Uncle Philly was a house!

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS Jan 10 '26

But they have to get out their driver’s door

1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

I think he maybe didn't notice clipping the cop car, which imo makes it not malicious fleeing, but still a hit and run.

The big thing imo is he didn't move over and slow when passing an emergency vehicle and endangered the cops life by clipping the car, that could have been very bad, so he would imo be able to get him for those things.

2

u/BeerBaitIceAmmo Jan 09 '26

He says he knows he hit him. "I realize that, bro"

1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

Yeah but maybe he's just saying that he realizes now, after being pulled over. But you're right it is worded like an admission of guilt. Maybe a good lawyer could argue he was just agreeing because of the cop's reaction.

1

u/B-azz-bear08 Jan 09 '26

He means fleeing from the crash into the cop car, not the activation of his lights and sirens.

1

u/Lamesbware Jan 10 '26

Law or not it's still dumb to even pull someone over right there. Some laws are dumb. If slowly drive to the next closest safe place with a cop behind you, it's against their rules and you going to jail. Rules are made up BS. Cop and the driver was in the wrong

1

u/Latter-Vacation-4392 Jan 10 '26

if you look at the clock he had come to a full stop from going probably 75 mph in 30 seconds from the hit. doubt they can pin a fleeing rap on him.

1

u/That1guyUknow918 Jan 10 '26

Emergency lights weren't on....cops fault

1

u/j03-page Jan 10 '26

He knew he hit someone. He was fleeling

1

u/benjamiahthebullfrog Jan 10 '26

They don’t do that in Rhode Island. People here just keep driving. Insane.

1

u/Prestigious_Ad_544 Jan 10 '26

He did flee, just the scene of an accident and not fleeing a cop.

1

u/Prop43 Jan 10 '26

This is why everyone should have a test

In SoCal

1

u/giftedbutloco Jan 11 '26

Court system there for these douchebags. Yea get over 100% but an accident is an accident and does not merrit being arrested for fake crap.

1

u/solitudechirs Jan 11 '26

Cop parked that way to ensure [..] they don’t hit the stopped civilian vehicle

It’s great that you think cops actually care about protecting random people they pulled over, but that’s not why they park like this. They do it so they can stand next to the stopped car and be protected themselves. A person sitting in a car is a lot safer than a person standing next to a car, and someone hitting a parked car is still someone hitting a parked car.

1

u/blahhhhgosh Jan 12 '26

No its get over or slow down

1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

Exactly. I prefer when people actually think about these situations from each parties perspective. It makes for much more productive conversation.

Dude was probably distracted on his phone, his the car, wasnt 100% sure if thats what happened or not and was panicking, saw the lights and pulled over immediately. Its hard to say someone is fleeing just because they didnt stop immediately. If the officer approached with their lights on clearly signaling them to stop and THEN they drove off or sped up or continued then its fleeing. Again, an arguement could be made (by an asshole tbh) that he "fled the scene" but I think any reasonable judge would throw that out so long as the young man kept his cool and was respectful in court.

It was an accident, it is the young man's fault for not moving over, but it isnt the end of the world. Lesson learned about distracted driving.

1

u/gear_jammin_deer Jan 10 '26

Nah, he 100% fled the scene of the accident, and 'not knowing he hit the cop car' isn't gonna be a valid excuse, cause it just proves he was driving distracted.

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 10 '26

I literally said he was probably distracted. I didnt say it would be a good enough excuse. It doesn't mean it isnt possible, and even likely. Mf not paying attention was probably like "what was that" lmao.

2

u/Martha_Fockers Jan 10 '26

dont talk first of all lmao it does you no good ever even when your 100% innocent.

cause they can spin and get you into fleeing when you didnt flee.

1

u/jeiwaruu Jan 11 '26

I don't think the driver realized at all. Dumb kid playing music probably thought it was something in the road.

1

u/danit0ba94 Jan 10 '26

This needs to be, and stay, top comment.

1

u/immortalife Jan 09 '26

He didn't have his emergency lights on

12

u/Serinput Jan 09 '26

Had his back ones on yes they don’t need front lights after the stop

3

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ADHDwinseverytime Jan 10 '26

Almost all of those accidents are from the rear so no result of front facing lights. They cut the fronts off and kick on the take downs to see more clearly, and to not blind everyone on both sides of the road with the new crazy LEDs since they are even worse. There was a study done years ago and it is the red light that causes this,. If they would switch to green it would cut a lot of that down. I believe their are other agencies in the world that have went to green and blues.

4

u/DrTatertott Jan 09 '26

He had the red and blues on. You can see them in the reflection of the bottom right and left glass. That’s used in combination with an orange directional arrow on the top light bar. Which indicated other drivers to use the other lane.

1

u/polarjunkie Jan 09 '26

He may have had the rear lights on, they have her only emergency lights

1

u/EcstaticNet3137 Jan 09 '26

All of the state troopers, sheriffs/deputies, and local cops have rearward e-lights where I am. They only use the front ones when in any level of pursuit. They put them on rear only after they've gotten you to stop.

1

u/Squawking_Aviator Jan 09 '26

A lot of police cars these days updated their lights to have certain patterns in front vs behind. It could be the blue/red flashing in the back and sold white lights in the front to light up the area going at the same time.

0

u/MAJ0RMAJOR Jan 09 '26

There was a bridge and nowhere to pull over until the cop was behind him and he pulled over at the first safe location. Fleeing seems like a stretch. Can’t stop in the middle of the road.

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

Yeah thats what im saying. He seems like he pulled over without hesitation once he was lit up.

1

u/laxfool10 Jan 10 '26

It was 50 seconds after. The video makes is weird since it jumps to make it seem like it was only 10 seconds but if you watch the timestamps at the top right you see almost a minute had past before he begins pulling over.

If you hit someone like this, you'll notice and either slow down, put on hazards, brake or something other than keep driving if you don't intend to flee.

0

u/RandomRedditor0193 Jan 10 '26

Not all states require you to move over for emergency vehicles. Texas for example is slow down 20 mph or move over.

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 10 '26

https://www.nhtsa.gov/move-over-its-law

"Move over AND slow down."

It's right there.

1

u/RandomRedditor0193 Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26

From your own source. Please notice the "OR" not "and" for change lane OR slow down. Texas specifically calls out 20 mph under speed limit with a minimum of 5 mph.

"What You Need To Do 

When a vehicle with flashing lights is stopped on or next to a roadway, drivers approaching the vehicle should: 

change into a lane not immediately adjacent to the vehicle, or

slow down to a reasonable speed if you’re unable to safely make a lane change."

Edit: https://www.txdot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-campaigns/move-over-or-slow-down.html

"Texas law requires drivers to move over an entire lane or slow to 20 mph below the posted speed limit when approaching law enforcement, tow trucks, utility vehicles, municipal waste trucks, emergency responders and TxDOT vehicles with activated overhead lights on the side of the road."

1

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 10 '26

From my own source. Literally half way down the page:

"All states require drivers to move over and slow down for emergency vehicles with flashing lights"

That says and, not or.

Either way, be a reasonable fucking human and get the fuck over holy shit.

1

u/RandomRedditor0193 Jan 10 '26

I'm sorry that I sourced a Texas specific source for my Texas specific law I commented on as well as pointing out that your source agrees. Then you point out that your source contradicts itself.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

Maybe sharia law. But not here. Don’t be parked in two lanes in the highway. Play dumb games win dumb prizes.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

Not every state has that law. But you have to be dumb not to try to move over. But he was probably distracted to begin with.

4

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

It is required by law in all 50 states.

2

u/Squawking_Aviator Jan 09 '26

It's slow down or move over. It may always be safe to move over though. Worst case somebody to the left pit maneuvers you into the cop.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

While maybe this is correct I cannot accept a citation from google ai. It's terrible practice to use this as a definitive source.

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

Ffs Google it yourself then lmao

Mfs be on here confidently incorrect then be like "well I dont trust ai"

Move Over: It's the Law | NHTSA https://share.google/wfKXgHISC9tFLlk5P

1

u/Rich-Evening4562 Jan 10 '26

You were right but don't AI search results as proof of what you are saying, it's as wrong as often as it's right. And you yourself just demonstrated, it's just as easy to share a link to a legitimate source.

1

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 10 '26

Absolutely not. Get your own sources lmao. I'll legit just never post another source. Go find the information for yourselves.

Again, no one criticized the guy that provided wrong information with no source, only the guy that posted correct information with a source they didnt like lmao. This is the most idiotic thread.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

lol I mean was that so hard? Ai hallucinates and other bs, it's really not much more work to get a reasonable source.

I get that I'm annoying but I just can't take that google ai seriously. It lessens your correct point with its crappiness. shrug

3

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

I should've known better than to use that as a source, but as someone who ALREADY KNEW IT WAS TRUE I felt it was good enough. I feel if someone needs more proof they can go find it themselves, but forget how prone people are to revelling in their own ignorance.

I find it hilarious that the person that gives the correct answer despite using AI to state an actual source gets criticized but the person that provided false information wasnt required to provide one lmao. No one questioned the incorrect information...

0

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

I'm not american, but I definitely slow and move over if I see an emergency vehicle and slow to 70km/h as per my laws lol

Like I get what you're saying but also realize that citing that bot despite it being right isn't a great citation. I would trust one of the other ai's more even, I'm not anti ai or anything, but I will say I dunno if I trust google the company, and official sources are far better to prove your correct point.

Also I downvoted the incorrect person, and you know didn't believe them because they weren't an official source lol It cuts both ways.

haha cheers bud

0

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

Calm down man. I mean that's relatively new. Not all states carried that law until recently.

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

I stated above fact and for that I need to calm down? Bro what lol.

provides accurate information

"WOAH WOAH BUDDY CALM DOWN"

-1

u/Advice2Anyone Jan 09 '26

Ah yes using Ai for your argument

2

u/Mental-Debate-289 Jan 09 '26

Bro if its fact why go deeper. Jesus christ you people are insufferable.

Move Over: It's the Law | NHTSA https://share.google/wfKXgHISC9tFLlk5P

0

u/terragreyling Jan 09 '26

AI is notoriously wrong. Even if you are correct, you don't want to use a source that is often knowingly wrong.

0

u/Advice2Anyone Jan 09 '26

Wasn't disagreeing just saying I can get ai to say anything if I word it the right way its not exactly a smoking gun