Baby Killed After Mom Runs From North Texas Police

[Joanne98]

Source: kxan

A high speed chase comes to a deadly end after a mother runs from police with her baby in the car.

37-year-old Amy Riza faces manslaughter and evading arrest charges after her SUV slammed into a concrete median in North Texas.

Her nine month old baby was thrown from the seat and died.

Police don't know why Riza lead them on a chase of speeds topping 110 miles per hour, through two counties.

The mother was not hurt in the crash.


Read more: http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=6339794&nav=menu73_2

---

Isn't it sad that the press doesn't know why she ran!

[DemGa]

1. That could've been anyone's family she was chased into

but the police have to get their man (woman).

[liberalnurse]

47. Why would she NOT stop?

Understanding the comand of stopping for the police is a question on the drivers exam.....You stop, not fly at 110 miles an hour, like a bat out of hell..throught 2 counties?????. You absolutely,stop if you have passengers, let alone a baby.

She is an irresponsible mother ( egg donor) with a deceased infant because she was selfish. Indeed, charge her with manslaughter at least. What a selfish bitch. They'll treat her right in Prison.

[DemGa]

65. Of course she was irresponsible and stupid

But the cops were also selfish and irresponsible for driving 110 mph. Do you think the police could have controlled their vehicle at those speeds if YOU happened to be in their way?

[Codeine]

83. Actually

they probably could. They're trained to a much greater degree than you or me.

[happyslug]

102. That made me laugh!!!!!!

Police are RARELY TRAINED IN HIGH SPEED PURSUIT, if trained at all it is during their "Training" session when first hired. They may had a refresher course every year or so, but beyond that almost no training. The reason for this is simple, people want police ON THE STREET NOT IN THE CLASSROOM. The military has it about right for every day in combat the soldier needs THREE DAYS OF TRAINING. Think about it, if the same ratio applied to police you would have an officer on the street 1 1/2 days per week, the rest of the week he be in class, on the range or on the track. People will NOT pay for that level of training, they want the Police on the street.

Hopefully people will NOT take this as an attack on the Police, it is just an observation that the Police are hired to patrol NOT to attend classes and that rarely are the Police truly trained better than Civilians and never, to my knowledge, trained the to level of the Military.

[mopinko]

99. wow

got some lingering issues from your childhood, or what?
jesus. the absolutely fanatical bashing that goes on here every time a less than perfect parent is in the news really makes me wonder about this supposedly liberal community.
it sounds to me like she was probably having some mental health issues. but what the fuck. let's just build a gallows here with no idea of the facts.

[TX-RAT]

114. Facts as we know them.

911 calls concerning a reckless driver.
Police catch up and identify vehicle.
Police attempt to stop vehicle.
Vehicle commits a felony in TX by fleeing to allude.
Mother kills child in foolish and reckless attempt to allude apprehension.


(sounds to me like she was probably having some mental health issues.)

Have to agree with ya there, running from police and killing your child in the process, definitely makes me question her sanity.

[liberalnurse]

141. She committed negligent homicide....

You minimize her behavior as if she missed a kids swim meet or fed the kids pizza for breakfast........

Mental Health issues....I seriously doubt her actions were the result of a pathological condition but rather a good old, narcissistic drug induced blackout.

[Marrah_G]

132. WTF?

Why bother having police if they aren't allowed to apprehend anyone? Next a drunken asshole is barreling down the highway toward YOUR family I wonder if you would be thinking..."oh leave that poor guy alone, just take his plate number and stop by later"

[DemGa]

143. That's an absurd thing to wonder

I do think that a policeman driving a car over 110 mph is a deadly weapon...just as much as the person they are chasing. Yes, the cops should do all they can to avoid this nonsense.

[Marrah_G]

144. So they should just let the person continue driving erratically?

[superconnected]

148. Many counties ban high speed chases because of this.

[mopinko]

150. yup. there are other ways. after all, there were

more cops than there were drivers. they send someone out to get ahead of them, then they cut them off.
bad, bad, bad police behavior. high speed chases- stupid cowboy tactics.

[Kagemusha]

2. I think you mean the police?

She has the right to remain silent. She doesn't have to give them an explanation... much as I'd sure like one too.

[AlCzervik]

3. i just read another story about this and the police said she had no outstanding warrants

and they don't know why she wouldn't pull over.

[jwirr]

24. Then if she is so innocent the real question is: Why were they chasing

her at such high speeds?

[Codeine]

94. Because she was driving recklessly

and passing people on the shoulder; other motorists called the police because she was driving so erratically.

[jwirr]

100. Okay then that makes more sense. There had to be a reason for

that kind of chase.

[Pachamama]

85. Is she an illegal immigrant? Maybe she did something and thought they were after her?

Maybe she was afraid of being busted for not having her kid in a car seat? Maybe she was high and hallucinating?

I'm curious too why she "fled"....but whatever the reason, her punishment is the ultimate in that she has to live with herself the rest of her life knowing her high speed run cost her child's life.

:cry:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jakem]

14. WTF? THEY killed her baby? The victim?!

The cops knew there was a baby in the car how?

She had a reason to not stop, why?

[Joanne98]

19. THAT"S RIGHT! Cops are responsible when people die in high speed chases!

You heard it here first. AND I hope she sues them to DEATH!

[jakem]

22. So many things wrong with this logic. nt

[jwirr]

25. Many states have high speed chase laws for this very reason.

[jakem]

30. Im not saying it was necesarily a great idea to pursue...

but...

1) initiating the high speed chase
2) with a baby in the car
3) with a baby not even apparently belted in

will pretty much eliminate any chance that I am going to be viewing this woman as a victim here.
The dead baby is a victim.

My understanding is that the reasons against high-speed pursuit are mostly a concern for innocent people, not so much for the people trying to escape the cops...

[liberalnurse]

48. Just stop your teasing.

You can't make lite of this babys death by placing the blame on anyone but the driver of the out-of-control vehicle. She was reckless, foolish and assumed full responsibility when placing herself at the wheel...all at the expense of an innocent life. No one had a gun to her head nor was she wearing an explosive time bomb.... She is not a victim...but an offender.

[TX-RAT]

117. She is not a victim...but an offender.

Thank You!

[Pachamama]

84. How about this: Both the woman and the cops were wrong to engage in a high speed chase

Remember - it takes two to tango - The woman was wrong for speeding at hi speeds with her baby in the car no less....but the cops are equally wrong for hi speed chases.

Two wrongs, don't make a right....in this case, they made a dead baby.... :cry:

[Codeine]

91. That's an untenable position.

It allows any person who has committed a crime or endangered the public to escape the law just by speeding away. That's absurd.

[liberalnurse]

105. Based on the additional information I heard on CNN,

she apparently was combative with Officers after the accident. I heard the Officers report on CNN, that they tried to block the road, use tire spikes....they used various techniques which would clue in the average American to STOP.

My guess is that she was "High-High" on a drug buzz.....

:smoke:

[CookieD]

108. So if the cops said it, it's gotta be true, right??

Why would you guess that she was "high-high" on some kind of drug? Wouldn't a medical professional want to see a blood test or some other kind of medical evidence before leaping to a conclusion? Plus, don't you think the cops might have some motive - e.g., fear of a lawsuit, fear of suspension, fear of getting fired or possibly prosecuted for their own reckless driving - to make the statements that they did? On television no less??

Geez.

[TX-RAT]

112. hmmm

Why would you guess that she was "high-high" on some kind of drug?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe because rational sober people, don't do what she did?

[liberalnurse]

139. I think some folks are deliberately

baiting with the stupid replies.....If they can use a computer, then they can read and possibly comprehend what they just read. I sense they know the difference. If not, they could be in denial of their own family neglect issues related to substance abuse.

Either or, I don't care to respond to their dribble. What about you? I'd rather take this serious.... O8) Apparently they have never witnessed a fatal accident because if they did, they would not be so comical.

[CookieD]

142. If you believe your profession gives you moral highground ...

... that's OK. But sometimes one's profession and/or experiences might tend to cloud one's objectivity.

[liberalnurse]

146. Not in my case ....

I have a crystal clear view from up here on the highground...I know this because I have definitely earned it, professionally and privately. O8)

[mopinko]

151. oh, so, her defenders are in denial but

her attackers like you, couldn't possibly have any issues of there own, huh? hmmmmm....

[TX-RAT]

118. Wouldn't a medical professional want to see a blood test

Ever draw blood at 110 mph?

[liberalnurse]

121. Indeed, so will the Judge require evidence of

drug possesson and/or positve lab tests. Her behavior signals the alarm for active drug usage, intoxication....

[CookieD]

128. I'm not sure whether you're making a statement or asking a question ...

What troubles me most, however, is that a medical professional, such as yourself, is apparently willing to conclude that the driver was intoxicated. You have no specific evidence other than what you claim you heard the cops saying on TV.

Many people drive recklessly without being intoxicated. And a great many people (even cops) will shade facts when it is in their best interest to do so. We'd all be better off if we didn't reflexively jump to conclusions.

That's all I'm saying.

[ProudDad]

157. It could also have been

Hypoglycemia..

"Brief or mild hypoglycemia produces no lasting effects on the brain, though it can temporarily alter brain responses to additional hypoglycemia. Prolonged, severe hypoglycemia can produce lasting damage of a wide range. This can include impairment of cognitive function, motor control, or even consciousness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia

This could be another case of inadequate or unavailable health care...

----------------

I feel sorry for the child...

I also feel sorry for the mother...

Hell, I even feel sorry for the cops...they probably thought "routine reckless driving" stop...

[CookieD]

126. I could be wrong ...

But I think they usually draw blood samples later on. At the hospital. After which, rational people draw rational conclusions based upon medical evidence.

But perhaps in some places people just conclude that if you can't draw a blood sample at 110 mph, you might as well take the cop's word for it.

[TX-RAT]

129. I'll play

Does a rational sober person with their 9 month old child on board, start driving so recklessly that other drivers phone in the complaint? Does that same person then go on to commit a felony by fleeing to allude? Would a rational or sober person then endanger not only their child's life, but everybody Else's who was using that road?

Do they administer a breathalyzer before pulling you over for suspsion of DWI? No! By your own actions you have done something that would lead them to believe you under the influence.

[CookieD]

138. Fine let's play

1. You're conflating "rational" and "sober";
2. Assuming you mean an intoxilyzer (aka breathalyzer) and not merely a portable breath test, chemical specimens are usually drawn after a person is arrested. An arrest must be based upon probable cause and not a mere hunch or suspicion. In the present case, the police apparently had reasonable suspicion to detain the motorist and investigate. The police might have even had reasonable suspicion to investigate the motorist for DWI. But it's a jump from there to conclude that the person was intoxicated.

I don't mean to parse. Precise language is necessary when you're talking about constitutional rights. (For example, does the Geneva Convention apply to the captives at Guantanamo Bay? It depends upon whom you ask.) In this case I'm simply pointing out that it is a good idea to use precise language and to reserve judgment when we don't have all the facts.

Your play.

[liberalnurse]

140. You go TX!!!!

I'm at work at the moment and can't seem to steal enough time to post the details ....You make my day.:yourock:

[jwirr]

101. Yes that is the reason our laws were enacted, We had police who

were chasing people at highs speeds right through the center of town. When there were several accidents the laws passed.

[ProudDad]

155. Unfortunately, Texas ain't one of them

They do have dumbshit concealed carry laws.

And they seem to be unable to pass stiff drinking and driving laws...

"In the past, many Texans were relatively tolerant toward drinking and driving; distances between towns were jokingly measured in terms of six-packs. Moreover, Texans and their Legislature tended to oppose restrictions on personal freedom in the name of safety."

http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/tpr/tpr4/c3.psc/c308.html

[Miss Chybil]

33. Who should have cared more for that baby's safety? The cops, or the mother?

Who will you trust more with the safety of your children, if you have, or will ever have them? The cops, or yourself?

You can blame the cops all you want in this situation. I don't agree with high speed chases, except when the cops know they are chasing an armed, dangerous person who has just harmed, or is in the process of harming, someone. So, I don't think they should have chased her, but more importantly SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE RUN! It was her baby and her foot on the gas. End of story.

[Codeine]

34. That's pure bullshit.

She chose to flee. She put her baby at risk. The blood is on her hands and nobody else's .

[SemperEadem]

51. I agree... too many accidents involving high speed chases

kill too many innocent people. Police have been successfully sued for this.

[brentspeak]

88. I can only assume you're being sarcastic

Nobody could be that irrational without being so on purpose.

[TX-RAT]

107. And your reasoning behind this is ?

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Oh they were the ones who chose not to put this baby in a car seat?

[StrictlyRockers]

44. No, they were the ones who chose to scare an innocent person, prompting her to flee.

The cops are guilty of manslaughter. The mother is also negligent for not using a child seat.

[Codeine]

73. Scaring her? Innocent?

She was reported by other drivers as driving recklessly and passing on the shoulder, ferfuxsake! Should the police have just ignored that? Even before the chase she was putting other people's lives at risk.

[Truthiness Inspector]

79. Yup

It's a lose-lose proposition for the police here. Had they NOT pursued her, and she careened into other vehicles killing and injuring others, including her baby, you can bet some of the same people would be saying the cops SHOULD HAVE stopped her. :eyes:

[TX-RAT]

119. Bull shit

[Marrah_G]

133. They made her flee?

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Why did the police give chase?

Were the cops somehow enhancing public safety by zooming after this woman, sirens screaming & lights flashing? Could they have just ID'd the car & picked her up later?

[Joanne98]

6. Because they wanted too.

[Little Wing]

11. because cops eat babies

anything else you'd like to add?

[Joanne98]

20. Just a little something!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x22105

[mainegreen]

131. !!!!

:rofl:

Pretty much what is going on in this thread.

[progressivebydesign]

39. Umm. because they cannot just let people flee like that.

They have no idea if she's impaired and will kill someone, had kidnapped a child, robbed a bank, shot a man. How quaint your suggestion of getting the license plate and finding her later... that was rich.

[Codeine]

43. Yes they can!

And they must, because all police are monsters and evil and she just HAD TO RUN!!! :sarcasm:

[Little Wing]

60. And I raanaann! I ran into cement!!

/flock

There's some seriously fucked up opinions in this thread

[Wilber_Stool]

53. What if she had been impaired?

Then chasing her would make things safer for others on the road? What if she had kidnapped the child? The kid would still be dead. What if she had robber a bank? Well, a dead kid is more than an even trade off for the banks money. Do you ever think before you speak? Obviously not.

[Big Pappa]

55. What if.....

she stopped like she was supposed to.

[reprobate]

70. I suggest that YOU stop and think. Just HOW did the officers know there was a

child in the tank she was driving? I mean BEFORE the crash.

[Jim Sagle]

7. WTF? If they don't know why she led them on a chase, then why the FUCK were they chasing her?

What's wrong with taking down her license number and arresting her later?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

35. Monsters. Right.

You're trolling.

[Marrah_G]

106. are you serious?

Are you so niave as to think all license plates and registration information are correct? They were chasing her because she was driving eratically enough for other drivers to call the police on their cell phones.

I really it is the hip, cool thing to blame the police for everything, but they were doing their job. The blame rests on this mother and she should be held accountable. I have children, I would rather go to jail then ever risk their lives trying to run.

[kestrel91316]

9. Where I come from, if the police are behind you with their lights and

sirens, you pull over. Doesn't matter if it's you or somebody else they are after. You PULL TO THE RIGHT AND STOP.

Is it different in TX??

My question is, why didn't she pull over?

[Joanne98]

10. Maybe this is why...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x22105

[SayWhatYo]

67. because she was a 14 year old in a "bootcamp"

and those guards from there were the one chasing here?


Now is the time in which I could pull out some video of cops chasing a very dangerous murderer and say that is why they were chasing her... Same logic, right?

She was stupid and her stupidity got her innocent child killed. Now, I'm not saying that high speed chases are a good idea. In fact, I think they should try to employ different strategies. However, trying to make this out to be cops the fault and this women the victim is totally ridiculous.

[Alcibiades]

12. She had no business going 110 MPH

Sorry, but there's no reason to be going 110 MPH with a baby in the car. Anyway, yes, not chasing would have been sensible for the cops, but what about pulling over?

I like to drive fast, but even so, there is no reason I would ever drive 110 MPH with my baby in the car. I even get a little freaked out only driving 90-95 MPH when he's in the car!

[Little Wing]

13. and reason returns to the thread

Hello, reason :hi:

[Alcibiades]

17. I understand that part of Texas

can be pretty desolate, so 110 MPH might seem to be a reasonable rate of speed (I got my car up to 119 up in South Dakota), but not when you're running from the cops. If you must run from the cops, pull an OJ--go for the low-speed chase.

It's amazing how many will defend other folks "right" to do something so obviously stupid that they would never, ever do it themselves. :hi:

[booksenkatz]

61. That's my part of TX

Not desolate at all, that entire corridor has exploded in growth from DFW all the way down to at least Hillsboro. VERY lucky there were not more deaths in this nightmare.

[Alcibiades]

63. I was thinking of the panhandle

where it might be remotely thinkable to go 110 MPH fleeing from the cops. Going that fast in a built-up area? You're right, it's very lucky she didn't rear-end someone's grandmother.

[ProudDad]

158. You got that right!

I've been in San Marcos, TX.

You could get rear ended at night if you're only driving 90... :)

[kestrel91316]

15. She endangered not only her child's life by speeding, she

endangered the cops' lives, and the lives of everybody else on the road.

She's not gonna get a whole lot of sympathy from me for what SHE DID.

[Big Pappa]

16. As much

as I hate some of these damn cops for there Gestapo tactics, this women does bear some responsibility for her own actions. I hope that she and the cop that started that chase don't sleep well tonite.

[jwirr]

27. I don't think that anyone here is saying she is innocent. What I and

at least one other person here are trying to say is that high speed chases are dangerous to innocent bystanders (or babies) and should only be used when there is very good reasons to do it. She could have been arrested later if there was no life or death situation.

The law we have here where I live against high speed chases was made because bystanders where killed in too many instances when it was not all that important to catch the criminal immediately.

[Big Pappa]

29. Oh, I agree completely.

Look these asshats would do 150 mph in a school zone if they thought you did not use your turn signal. This cop made horrific decision just as the mom made the same horrific decision. Now they must both live with this.

[Codeine]

75. Sadly

it did appear that this was such a situation, as she was already driving recklessly and passing on the shoulder. That puts the lives of other people at risk, and is good reason to pull somebody over.

[progressivebydesign]

40. A cop doesn't "start a chase".

SOmeone FLEEING starts a chase.

[CookieD]

109. Maybe not in your neighborhood. eom

[reprobate]

76. I'm afraid you've fallen into the Bush trap of labelling those you disagree

with as "evil" (gestapo?). While there certainly are a few LEOs who have ego inflation problems, the overwhelming majority are just folks trying to do an almost impossible job and get home safe to their families at the end of a shift.

I can tell you from personal experience that you do NOT sleep well after a chase, any chase. The adrenalin that your system injects into the bloodstream in order to lower your reaction times to handle the speeds takes HOURS to dissipate, and every moment of the time you spend going over your actions and what you could have done to precipitate a better outcome. And that's just an ordinary chase, with no injuries.

I won't even try to describe what you experience after an injury chase. Fortunately I never experienced that, though I know a few who did. A couple of them were so effected that they found other, less stressful occupations.

Let me describe for you one experience that left me with quite a few sleepless nights. This was not a chase in any way. My unit was called strictly for traffic control. A drunk had crossed over the center line and head on into a car carrying a woman and her 14 year old daughter. Being one of the first units on scene, we tried to help in extricating the child from the wreckage. It was quickly apparent that this was a hopeless task. The child wasn't wearing a seat belt and head was sticking through the windshield. She had already bled out by the time the paramedics arrived. The mother had relatively minor injuries - a broken leg as I recall - and the drunk was unmarked, telling everyone who would listen that it wasn't his fault.

In this case there was no doubt who was at fault, the drunk was charged with vehicular homicide. But to this day I wonder what the child's life would be like today. She'd probably be getting ready to be a grandmother by now. How many kids would she have? Who would she marry? All questions with no answers because the mother didn't insist she buckle up.

May I respectfully suggest to you that there is something you could do that would quickly give you a more balanced view of law enforcement, if you're interested in a more balanced view. Simply call your local cops, state police, highway patrol, or sheriff's office and ask about a 'ride along'. I guarantee that one evening shift in the right seat will give you a new perspective.

[Big Pappa]

104. If

you read a little closer you would seen that used the word "some'. It seems that this is one of those situations where neither party wanted to back down and a child was killed.

[Joanne98]

18. She was running from cops. Tell them to leave people alone.

[oscarmitre]

21. I know I'll get flamed for this

but let's put the blame where it belongs. The woman, for some reason, refused to stop. Now whether or not the police should have continued the pursuit is obviously a moot point but let's be very clear about who started it. The woman started the pursuit by not pulling over. She could have stopped. She should have stopped, as she was required to do by law I would think. She chose not to stop. She chose to drive very fast knowing she had a baby in the car. It may be that the child wasn't properly secured, I don't know, there's no information on that. But there's no getting away from the fact that she initiated the chain of events by refusing to stop and by driving at very high speeds. It may turn out that the woman was mentally incapacitated and chose not to stop because she wasn't functioning too clearly. Whatever her motivation you can't just dump the blame on the cops.

[Mz Pip]

23. Another voice of reason

Jeez, how hard can it be? You see a blue flashing light behind you and you pull the fuck over. Duh. If it's a mistake you can contest it, if it isn't then you pay the goddamn ticket and go to traffic school. You do not accelerate to 110 miles per hour and expect nothing to happen. You do not put your kid's life at risk because you hate the Man.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[liberalnurse]

49. Some of thes posts have to be

fictious. I sense they just want to pretend to be stupid liberals.....this kind of jabber makes great fodder for the freeper boards. It has to be bait.

[Frank Cannon]

57. I agree completely

I've been seeing a HUGH!!1! increase in this sort of thing of late. A lot of "outrageous librul opinions" being expressed that sound like they came right out of Limbaughland. Check out the numerous posts over the last few days that defend...of all things...pedophilia.

I sense some sort of orchestrated effort here. Fortunately, the grammar, spelling, and punctuation on these posts tend to give them away.

[SayWhatYo]

68. I tend to agree...

[TX-RAT]

125. I hope your right, but I'm afraid your wrong.

[Codeine]

36. That's pure idiocy.

Pure and unadulterated idiocy.

[Miss Chybil]

31. You drive 90 - 95 miles an hour with your baby in the car

and the rest of us on the street? You're being sarcastic, right?

[Alcibiades]

64. Yes

I am being sarcastic. Good catch.

In the real world, I don't go over 7 MPH over the speed limit, with or w/o the baby in the car. My driving record is spotless.

[DemGa]

26. Cops driving over 110 mph are also deadly

Luckily no one else was killed.

[Ilsa]

28. 9 month old thrown from seat? Was that child even buckled

in properly? It is crazy to drive like that with a baby not properly buckled in.

[Miss Chybil]

32. And if the baby was buckled in, driving 110 mph would not be crazy? nt

[Marrah_G]

37. No ones fault but the mother's

She chose to drive 110 while evading the police. No one forced her to drive like a lunatic, it was HER choice. She killed her child. I hope she suffers long and hard. As a mother I find it completely disgusting that ANYONE is calling this woman a victim. The only victim here is the child.

[Frank Cannon]

58. Fundamental law of physics: The cops can't chase you at...

110 miles an hour if you don't lead them in a 110-mph chase.

I have friends who are cops, and I can tell you that they all DREAD the high-speed chase scenario as much as they dread having to fire their weapons. But when cops see someone trying to get away at such an insane speed, they have every right to assume something is terribly, terribly wrong. It could be a hostage situation, someone on drugs, or just some maniac with a death wish who is planning take one or more people with her. And how the hell were they supposed to know there was a baby in the car?

I agree, the baby was the victim here, and the mom is directly responsible. The cops, I believe, were doing their jobs.

[progressivebydesign]

38. Something like this happened in our town..

A woman, with her toddler in the car, was speeding and driving erratically. Before the police could get close to her she lost control of the car. She died, the child survived. No one knew why she did that until the toxicology tests came back. She was drunk, midday, driving with her child in the car. Lucky for that child he was in a car seat. If that baby in the original message had been strapped in, it wouldn't have been thrown from the car. the woman was probably high or drunk. There is no reason to run from the police, she could have killed more than her own child.

[colinmom71]

42. Yep. I completely agree with you...

And I'll bet you $10 this particular baby was not in a properly installed infant safety seat, if in one at all. Car seat safety has always been my pet peeve after my son was born, especially for special needs kids. So I tend to get rather perturbed by stories like this one... My husband has learned over the years to just fast-forward over news stories concerning car seat issues so as to avoid yet another "colinmom" diatribe. ;)

The vast majority of accidents where babies/toddlers/small kids are passengers and are in a correctly installed (and proper for their size) child safety seat in the rear passenger position, those kids almost always survive a crash and usually with few injuries. Heck, there have even been incidents where infants in carrier-style infant seats were *ejected* from the vehicle during a crash and those babies *still* escaped with relatively minor injuries. This baby's death is just inexcuseable, and that is *not* due to the police department's fault...

That mom was an idiot to try to evade police and prompt a high-speed chase with her baby in the car. Sadly, her baby and ultimately she herself are paying the ultimate price for her terrible mistake here...

[truthisfreedom]

45. Tragic.

Blood on everyone's hands.

[RogueBandit]

46. We sure don't know much...

Why was she pursued in the first place? Was she driving erratically? Was she speeding? Did she fail to use a turn signal? I read that short article and didn't see any reason for the police to be caring about her in the first place.

Based on that scanty reporting I'd say she saw the cops and just took off on a high speed evasive maneuver. There must have been some reason for that. It may be that the cops in that area have a bad reputation, it might be that she believed her ex-husband had convinced the cops to follow her and plan a kidnap of her kid, it might be that she was paranoid and believed the real culprits of 9-11 were after her...the possibilities would create a book of short stories.

Both the woman and the cops are culpable IMHO. Once the cops saw she was using a high speed evasive maneuver they should have backed off so she would slow down, then caught up with her later. She should have had that kid tied down. I'm not going to say she should have pulled over because I don't know the reputation of the cops in that area nor do I know what she expected those cops to do if they caught her.

Why didn't the paper report say why the cops took an interest in her? Did anyone here see something about that that I'm missing?

[Frank Cannon]

59. It was a poorly written article

We really don't know why they were interested in her, nor why she chose to get away as insanely fast as she did.

I suspect there's a lot more to this story. But whatever happened, bottom line is you don't drive 110 miles an hour with a baby in the car. Ever. Period. I don't know why people find this to be such an exotic concept.

[geomon666]

50. More details....

http://www.wlky.com/news/11565352/detail.html

Authorities said Riza faces manslaughter, evading arrest, resisting arrest and reckless driving charges.

Police said it's unclear why Riza wouldn't stop when they tried to pull her car over. Trooper Dub Gillum of the Texas Department of Public Safety said Riza had no warrants for her arrest.

The chase started after a report of a reckless driver.

Authorities used spikes, tried to block intersections ahead and backed off the SUV hoping it would slow down. But Gillum said Riza continued to drive until she crashed, even traveling on the rims after the SUV's tires were deflated.


http://news.bostonherald.com/national/south/view.bg?articleid=193524

Aimee Andrea Riza, 36, sustained minor injuries and was charged with manslaughter, evading arrest, resisting arrest and reckless driving, Gillum said.
“She was combative after the crash when they tried to extract her out of the vehicle,” he said. “The officers had to wrestle her to get her under control.”
A motorist had called the Somervell County Sheriff’s Department to report a reckless driver. When Riza refused to stop, authorities chased her through two counties at speeds up to 110 mph, Gillum said.

[Dogmudgeon]

52. After reading some of the responses here ...

... it needs to be said that "this is why we have courts of law".

I question the judgment of the cops and the driver alike -- to say the least.

Most cops these days are specifically trained in "pursuit discipline", the ability to make rational decisions during emotionally challenging pursuits and encounters. This is also why many PDs have pursuit doctrines in force.

You can't really depend on a news story to present all the facts, especially where tragic outcomes are the result. I frequently give the cops the benefit of the doubt, but when someone dies, there has to be an inquiry. We have a compelling need to carefully analyze police behavior in these situations. Police officers are professionals, or are supposed to be. If they were wrong, let them suffer the consequences.

I am certain Ms. Riza will be facing her own consequences for the rest of her life. But while we can scrutinize the actions of the police, all we can do with the public is to educate them about how to respond to police during pull-overs, pursuits, arrests, etc.

It's easy to stick a "perp" behind bars and forget about why it was done. Continually learning from mistakes and improving police work is vital, no matter who is at fault in which incident.

--p!

[oscarmitre]

56. I couldn't agree more n/t

[Wilber_Stool]

54. In case anyone is interested,

this is what "police chase death" will get you on google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=police+chase+death&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[slackmaster]

62. Article doesn't say whether or not the child was in a proper safety seat

Nor does it give the name or gender of the child.

Pretty sad piece of journalism, leaving the audience unable to decide whether to blame the police, the driver, the SUV, or some combination. So here we sit in a silly circular firing squad, letting our own biases fill the void of information.

But I'm going to stick out my neck and put the blame squarely on Ms. Riza for not stopping, and for speeding, and for failing to keep control of her vehicle. If she didn't have her baby in a safety seat, that's her fault too.

[SayWhatYo]

69. Not sure if the gender of the child nor the buckle status changes much.

The gender is pretty much irrelevant, I think. Unless of course you think either boys or girls lives are more important than the other. Also, I don't see how the child being buckled or not really matters simply because of the speed at which they were going. Not to mention one shouldn't do stupid shit when you have a baby in the car. Short of there being some crazy movie like conspiracy type thing going on, I don't see how anyone can defend this lady's actions. Although, it doesn't seem like we disagree on who is to blame.

[slackmaster]

86. It shows a lack of attention to detail

Nothing more.

[booksenkatz]

66. The fault obviously lies with...

the person who phoned her in for her reckless driving in the first place. (I haven't seen that person blamed yet on this thread.)
:sarcasm:

[Truthiness Inspector]

80. LOL! No kidding. n/t

[madmom]

71. seems to me a lot of people making a lot of assumptions here, they

don't know why she didn't stop, how can anyone here know why she didn't stop.Shouldn't we wait for the facts before we blame anyone?:shrug:

[Codeine]

74. I don't really need to know

why she didn't stop. What I do know is that she did refuse, and engaged in a high-speed chase that could have killed many innocent motorists whose only crime was driving home from work.

She had already been reported putting other drivers at risk with her reckless behavior, and simply continued with her lack of consideration for the lives of others when the police showed up.

[madmom]

78. by this standard the police were endangering innocent people

also, it sounds like they knew who she was "she had been reported" why make matters worse by pursuing her?

[Codeine]

81. Other drivers called on cell phones.

They had a responsibility to stop this person. Or is it your position that such folks be allowed to go about their merry way until they plow into someone, then the police can come?

[madmom]

87. for someone who doesn't need to know the facts you sure are

assuming a lot. You don't know what my position is other than I think we should have ALL the facts before making a judgement on any one.By your reply, facts mean nothing, you don't like what she did for whatever reason, so hang the bitch!

[Codeine]

90. Hey, put some more words in my mouth!

I'm not assuming anything; there are a number of stories out about this incident. She's been charged with evading arrest with vehicle causing death.

Why did she do it? I don't know, and it doesn't matter, because there can be ni justification for such an action.

[madmom]

92. I am not putting words in your mouth, you said in post #74...

"I don't really need to know why she didn't stop" and in post #81 you said my position was "that such folks be allowed to go about their merry way..." My position on this matter and any matter...know all the facts before you judge!I never gave any indication whether I thought she was right or wrong, you just assumed.

[Codeine]

93. I still don't need to know why she didn't stop.

You don't get the choice not to stop. Running from the cops isn't justifiable.

[madmom]

95. OH I beg to differ...there are times I know I would not stop for

flashing lights if I were on the way to the er with a very sick or injured passenger, I was on my way to help someone when time was of the essence, to name a couple, I would keep going and answer questions later.

[Codeine]

96. I'm sure that happens all the time. nt

[madmom]

97. the point is ..it does happen!

[pinniped]

159. If the police initiate the PIT maneuver, you will not make it to your destination.

.

[TX-RAT]

162. Not making much sence.

"if I were on the way to the er with a very sick or injured passenger,"

"I was on my way to help someone when time was of the essence,"

Why in the world would you run from the very people who could help you the most? You think risking your life and the life of the person your trying to help, by running from the police, is a wise idea?

[marshall]

113. I wonder if she can turn around and sue the other drivers?

Aren't the Imams in the airport prayer case suing the other passengers who reported what they considered suspicious behavior? If the 911 calls can be identified (and I assume they can with police phone records) then she may have a case to sue them for wrongful death.

[Codeine]

147. I can only hope

you forgot your :sarcasm: tag.

[Patriought]

156. Only one fact counts here.

At the end of the day, someone drove a vehicle 110 mph with a baby inside. It dose'nt matter if she was drunk, it dose'nt matter if the police were angels or nazis, the morals of high-speed chases, etc.

She drove 110 mph with an innocent child in the vehicle.

[Codeine]

72. So she kept running

for 40 minutes, over multiple spike strips, with tires flattened, at 100+ miles an hour, and it's the cops fault? And this after she was reported driving recklessly and passing on the fucking shoulder? AND she was combative after she just sent her baby flying through the windscreen like an unguided missile?

Some DUers need their heads examined.

[happyslug]

103. Yes it is, if she was schizophrenic

Schizophrenic People chased by police will run, and the best way to prevent them from running is to STOP CHASING THEM. Most Police department had protocols that calls for such stopping of the chase if upon running the plate the operator may be schizophrenic. Thus if no one ran the plate, or if the police ignored the fact that the driver was schizophrenic it is the police department's fault.

[TX-RAT]

111. Where on the plates or the DL,

does it show whether a person is a schizophrenic?

[tammywammy]

115. The police are suppsoed to be psychic

Don't you know?? I mean just because other drivers call in b/c of the reckless driving, the police are supposed to know that she's going to run. The police were supposed to know that she had a child in the vehicle.

:sarcasm:

[happyslug]

127. It is often marked on the person record when the plate is run

Thus the protocol, i.e. if the record comes up with Schizophrenic the police are to back off. In fact in many states it is part of that person's "Record" i.e. police and driving record.

This came up a few years ago when the Pennsylvania State Police chased such a person and the subject came up, where the officers in the chase told that the person was schizophrenic. One non-state Police Officer said he heard it off his radio, but that was denied by the State Police. Remember the not only the officer gets the person's record up when they "Call" it in on their computers, but so does the dispatcher who can inform the officers of such information while providing other information (Like if the person has a gun, or has committed a recent crime).

[TX-RAT]

130. Running the plate, only gives you who those plates are registered to.

No guarantee the person behind the wheel is that person.

[tammywammy]

134. And when I register my car each year

There's no "schizophrenic" box to check. :shrug:

[TX-RAT]

135. Not one on your DL either.

[happyslug]

152. But when the Police run a "wants and Warrants" check, it does come up.

And such "Wants and Warrants" checks are automatic when most police call in that they are in a chase and give the operator the license number. THe reason for this is simple, if it comes the operator may be schizophrenic THE BEST WAY TO STOP THE PERSON FROM RUNNING IS TO STOP THE PURSUIT. Person with schizophrenia will NOT STOP AS LONG AS THEIR ARE BEING CHASED.

Remember a person suffering from schizophrenia IS NOT THINKING RIGHT. In a nutshell Not thinking right is the definition of schizophrenia (It is more complicated that that but it is a good nutshell definition). If I am a police officer and I find out the person I am chasing is schizophrenic, the best way for me to AVOID CAUSING AN ACCIDENT is to back off. Now most police officers want to chase, it is part of that human hunting instinct. It is thus often hard to get the officer to QUIT CHASING, but that is the best thing to do if you are chasing someone who is schizophrenic. As such information that a driver of a car may be schizophrenic is IMPORTANT to the Police and thus often on that person's record along with any outstanding warrants.

My point was simple, some time it is better for the Police to BACK OFF, then to chase. This has to be done on a case by case basis, but a blanket rule that she at fault for suffering from a mental illness that lead her to run when chased, I must object to. Mental Illness do exist in our society and society MUST address not only the needs of the mentally ill, but the problems such people cause do to their mental illness. One of them is if chased they will run.

[TX-RAT]

163. Where are you getting all this?

Your medical conditions or your medical history is not part of NCIC. The only way an officer could possibly know if a person had a mental condition is if he had dealt with them before, or another officer gives him a heads up.

Now for a question.

Since you use the excuse of schizophrenia as a reason for her actions, actions, that by all who witnessed, were dangerous to not only her and her child, but others on the highway. Lets throw in a few more, Diabetes, hypoglycemia and fever can all cause similar reactions or conditions. Now my question to you. Should a person who has a pre diagnosed condition for 1 of the above be allowed to drive?

[happyslug]

165. First, it was an issue in a local incident involving the our State Police

Remember most of these people who run do to their mental Conditions had run before. That came up in the news report Right after the incident. There was a report from a local officer saying he heard over the State Police Band that the person being chased was Schizophrenic, but this was denied by the State Police. Nothing came of the subsequent Criminal investigation, the state police who investigated the incident said only that no criminal acts occurred by the State police. As to Civil Litigation, the Civil Action was settled without even being filed in the local court (i.e. an offer of settlement was made before an action was even filed). All told the State Police violated their own rules, but were able to cover it up.

Thus my point, Police OFTEN have such information, and if the Officer has such information the Officer (and more importantly their supervisors overhearing the chase over the radio) follow the proper procedures set forth in their own manual when chasing a person with a mental illness.

[TX-RAT]

168. So your opinion is based on that?

OK

[TX-RAT]

164. "Wants and Warrants" checks are automatic

You are aware that the only way an officer can run a "wants and warrant's" is after he's confirmed your identity. The only way to confirm your identity is by running your DL#, and that can only be done after the vehicles has stopped, or crashed. Running the licence plate number gets you, who the plates were issued to, and what vehicle they were issued to, but in now way do they tell you who's driving the vehicle.

[Marrah_G]

136. You are assuming the driver is the owner of the plates

There is no way, until they stop the car for the police to know who is in the car. It could be stolen and not yet reported, it could be borrowed, the plates could be fromanother car. They do not know until they get the car stopped.

There is no possible way for the police to detirmine if the drive was insane. They did not have apositive ID.

[happyslug]

153. Most people drive the car their own.

Secondary many State Police Departments (and other Police Departments) can plug into their database the licenses plates of cars people with schizophrenia may drive. Thus the driver being unknown to the Police when the Police run the plate is slim, slimier if all possible drivers are listed in the database (Which it is given that the police now cross reference their database with Insurance companies in many state, and Insurance Companies always list ALL the drivers of the cars their are insuring).

Thus while it is possible for a Police Officer NOT to know the person the Officer is pulling over (The car may be stolen) that is rare. Once the police run the plate and find out it is a possible schizophrenic person driving the car, it has not been reported stolen or used in a Crime, the Police should back off as the best way to avoid causing an accident. That is the point I am making, it is possible that person who ran is mentally ill, and such illness would explain why she ran.

[Marrah_G]

160. Most people do yes

But generally when someone is running from the police they are not your average citizen on the way home from a PTA meeting. I would venture a pretty confident guess that a large portion of police chases end up with the vehicle being stolen.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

82. Excuse me

[brentspeak]

89. LOL!

I saved that one for later use myself.

[lonestarnot]

98. Don't run from the poles. (way my kindergardener spelled them)

Specially with your kids in the car as you can run but you cannot hide, and they are always going to catch up, sometimes with a bang.

[tammywammy]

110. I saw this story on the news the night it happened

The woman didn't have any warrants and the police were unsure of why she just didn't stop.

The only reason the police tried to stop her was because multiple other drivers called into 911 about her erratic driving.

The driver should have stopped. And considering that police were called b/c of her driving, I don't fault them for the chase. What if she had hit someone else or a pedestrian? It's completely her fault.

[lakercub]

145. Totally agree

I think, in general, high speed chases should be avoided. But this was a person who was a danger on the roads before the police were contacted. If they don't stop her...she probably kills not just the baby, but innocents in another car. The death of the baby is horrible, but, given the circumstances, more death was on the way if she didn't stop.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

116. I'm no fan of high speed police pursuits

They often take a situation that wasn't a public danger before and turn it into one. From what little I can glean from the news coverage Riza was already endangering her child and the lives of other drivers before the police attempted to stop her. As a matter of fact that was the reason they were attempting to stop her, reckless driving reports from other drivers.

Usually once you spike someones tires they slow down due to the lack of control. However, in this case Riza kept going until she was driving on no more than rims and crashed into a concrete median which caused her vehicle to roll several times, ejecting and killing the child. I find it difficult to feel sympathy for anyone involved in this other than the child who hand no control over the situation in which its life was lost.

[Matamoros]

120. Meth? Driving while Black? Driving while Mexican?

What on Earth were the police chasing this mother for?

Another casualty in the misguided "War on Drugs"?

What will our all-protecting police state declare war on next?

[TX-RAT]

123. guess you got here late

You might want to read the article.

[tammywammy]

124. The police were trying to stop her

because of her erratic driving, including passing on the shoulder. Other drivers called 911 because of her reckless driving.

The police tried various different ways to get her to stop, including "popping" her tires, blocking intersections and slowing down hoping she'd slow down.

Here's an updated news article, including her mug shot:
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/040807dnmetbabykilled.4188d3ab.html

Edited for spelling.

[Marrah_G]

137. The poor mother????????

They stopped her because people were calling in because she was driving erratically, putting others in danger. They weren't chasing a "Mother" They were chasing a person fleeing after they tried to stop her to keep her from hurting others.

The only victim here is the child who had a mother who cared more about herself then about her own offspring.

I swear to god, some people just look at every criminal like some sort of mis-guided angel and every cop as a fire-breathing demon just waiting to eat them alive.

[DuaneBidoux]

122. This particular incident truly points to policies on high speed chases not this particular event.

One can debate this particular case 'till your blue in the face. Most people either on the women's side here or on the police's side have legitimate points to make: yes she could have been mentally ill, she should have stoped, she endangered her child, police might have felt they needed to stop her because of dangerous driving (although on a point made above it is necessary to state that the physics of a heavy object traveling 110 miles an hour makes that object virtually impossible to stop in the time necessary to avoid an accident should conditions suddenly change--so all high speed chases, regardless of who's driving, fleeing, or chasing, are inherently extremely dangerous).

In any case the issue is really over high speed chases. After several serious accidents in Houston where I live they have really reigned in the police on high speed chases. It really needs to be a seriously dangerous individual (for whatever reason) until cops can have the authority to chase the car. Every major city should have a chopper on duty and police could call in the chopper to keep track of the car from a discrete distance until the person goes in someplace. This may not always be possible but it would be, obviously, a preferable solution.

Personally I favor the policy of severly restricting high speed chases, but the issue is the policy, not this particular accident.

[Bo]

149. High Speed pursuits should have been illegal years ago

You have to be a total IDIOT to condone high speed pursuits just to catch some A-Hole speeder. You put the lives of innocent people in the balance and its just cops going overboard as usual.

[ProudDad]

154. I'd be willing to bet

she was drunk...

Instead of screaming for her blood as some are on this thread maybe we should think a little about who we know who might also be driving drunk.

And we should try to stop them...



On Edit: Better article on the incident here:

http://www.star-telegram.com/226/story/60882.html


Either drinking, on meth or physically impaired due to a medical condition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia

Meth's real big in the hinterlands...

[bleedingheart]

161. Not enough information to defend or pillory the woman at this time

Now people don't run from the police unless they know they are in trouble or unless they are having some sort of problem.

If mom was high on crack or meth or if she was a schizophrenic...etc she might not have been mentally capable of stopping...

Her erratic driving behavior was enough to make people worry and that is why they called the police...soon I am sure we will all know the facts.

[slackmaster]

166. If she was high on crack or meth it was definitely her fault

As for schizophrenic, that's an interesting speculation but if she wasn't mentally capable of stopping she should not have been driving.

[bleedingheart]

167. I would have to agree with you ..

if she was a schizophrenic I am not sure why she would be allowed to drive without a doctor clearing her. The law is extremely tough on epileptics and I would suspect that someone with schizophrenia would be subject to the same scrutiny...especially if they were not stable.

My brother went to school with a kid who lost his license because of a small seizure and it was going to take an untold number of seizure free years before he could ever get it back.