Crossborder chase - kills one women

[DracoPaladore 0]

Car chas

Quote[/b] ]Woman killed in cross-border chase

Niagara Falls, Ont.  —  An American man faces a number of criminal charges, including impaired driving causing death and attempted murder after a cross-border car chase at Niagara Falls resulted in the death of a 40-year-old pedestrian.

Police say the ordeal began Wednesday evening when a man carjacked a vehicle in Buffalo, N.Y., and put the driver in the trunk.

When the car suffered a flat tire in a parking lot in Niagara Falls, N.Y., he abandoned the car and stole a pickup truck, police said.

Police say they began pursuing the vehicle as it headed toward the border between Canada and the U.S.

"The stolen vehicle crashed through the barricades on the U.S. side of the Rainbow Bridge and crashed through the Canadian side of the Rainbow Bridge," said Niagara Regional Police Det. John Olander.

Once in Niagara Falls, Ont., the pickup truck crashed into a compact car, pushing it into a female pedestrian and killing her.

Police say the truck continued until it crashed into a snow bank.

The driver then got out of the car and shot at a police officer. He was subdued after a brief struggle.

A 28-year-old man has been charged with impaired driving causing death, attempted murder and several firearms offences.

While the pedestiran killed is horrible, I heard that the United States police crossed the border without contacting Canadian police or any advanced warning.

Isn't this breaking international law?

[Added]

Diplomats look into it

Quote[/b] ]Diplomats look into cross-border police chase

Officers who pursued truck may be charged in incident that killed Canadian bystander

By GLORIA GALLOWAY

Friday, February 20, 2004 - Page A7

 E-mail this Article  

Print this Article    

  Advertisement

Canadian officials are considering diplomatic action after four American police cruisers chased a stolen pickup through a border station in Niagara Falls and continued their pursuit into the busy tourist town before the truck struck and killed a female bystander.

The U.S. officers involved, members of the force in neighbouring Niagara Falls, N.Y., could be charged as a result of the incident, which occurred just after dark on Wednesday, sources said late yesterday.

Constable Richard Geady of the Niagara Region Police said that if charges are laid in Canada, they "would be a violation of our general orders to continue on."

Friends say it was Laurie Bishop, a 40-year-old mother of two daughters, who was rammed by the fleeing vehicle as she stepped out of a parked car.

The truck kept on going, leaving Ms. Bishop dying in a pool of blood, then collided with a snowbank and a parking meter before coming to a stop.

The driver, who was brandishing a gun, jumped out and fled on foot. He was eventually wrestled to the ground by a constable from the Niagara Region force, but not before taking a shot in the officer's direction.

U.S. police are not permitted to chase suspects into Canada, said Reynald Doiron, a spokesman for the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs.

"Both sides fully recognize the importance of respecting each other's authority and national sovereignty," Mr. Doiron said.

"The government is not taking this incident lightly. We will be carefully reviewing all the facts before determining an appropriate course of action."

Officials from various sources said a diplomatic representation regarding the violation of sovereignty could be made as early as today.

One customs official, who asked not to be identified, said the American police did not radio ahead as is the protocol in cross-border chases, and customs agents were in shock when the truck and four cruisers zoomed through the crossing.

The truck, which had been stolen minutes earlier from a telephone repairman in Niagara Falls, N.Y., crashed through the barrier arm that was closed over the bus lane of the inspection station with two police cars in pursuit. Two other cruisers drove through regular inspection lanes, which were open at the time. One of them stopped as it arrived in Canadian territory; the others roared half a kilometre up the road before rounding a corner and vanishing from the sight of the customs guards.

Constable Geady said the American officers were told to stop a short time later and did so, then returned to the border.

Police Lieutenant Robert Rosati of Niagara Falls, N.Y., said his force would make no comment about the incident until this afternoon, but officials of the two forces apparently met in a closed-door meeting yesterday.

The issue for customs agents "is that any one of us could have got struck by the vehicle or God knows what could have happened. And then the issue extends to obvious disregard for Canadian sovereignty," said Ron Moran, the national president of the Customs and Excise Union.

"The number of jurisdictional infractions that would have been committed by the police officers would be countless. All you have to do is try to imagine if Canadian officers had done this on the U.S. side. The whole border would have been shut down across the country."

Cornelius Cross, 38, a U.S. resident, has been charged with impaired driving causing the death of Ms. Bishop and attempted murder in relation to the shot fired at the police officer.

Ms. Bishop, a former resident of New Jersey, returned to Niagara Falls with her husband and daughters a couple of years ago to be near her mother. She worked at the deli counter in a grocery store.

"She was a wonderful, wonderful girl," said Sue Korz, one of her co-workers.

The incident that claimed her life began on Wednesday afternoon when a woman walked into a police station in nearby Buffalo, N.Y., and said she had been held hostage by her boyfriend for several days after he pulled a gun on her during an argument.

According to police, the boyfriend then hijacked a car, forcing the driver into the trunk, and drove to Niagara Falls, N.Y., where he developed a flat tire.

Leaving the man in the trunk, he fled the scene and came across a telephone worker who was up a pole doing repairs. The worker was forced off the pole at gunpoint and his truck was stolen.

Police from Niagara Falls, N.Y., chased it and continued their pursuit into Canada.

[Added]

More info

Border

Quote[/b] ]NIAGARA FALLS, ONT. -- Police arrested a man yesterday after someone hijacked cars in the U.S., smashed through the Canadian border, and caused a hit-and-run accident that killed a pedestrian.

Police say the gun-wielding driver was involved in a carjacking in Buffalo, N.Y., then another in Niagara Falls, N.Y., before crashing through border barricades and into Canada yesterday evening.

Police in Niagara Falls, N.Y., say the man stole a car in Buffalo, putting the vehicle's driver in the trunk. He abandoned the car after it broke down with a flat tire in a Niagara Falls parking lot.

He then forced a cable worker down from a telephone pole at gunpoint, taking his truck.

"Our officers picked up the vehicle heading into Canada about two blocks from the bridge," said Detective John Olander of the Niagara Falls, N.Y., police.

"The stolen vehicle crashed through the barricades on the U.S. side of the Rainbow Bridge and crashed through the Canadian side of the Rainbow Bridge."

About 20 minutes later, a woman died in Niagara Falls, Ont., after being hit in what witnesses said was a chain-reaction accident. Witnesses said a grey pickup truck clipped a few cars which were parked on the east side of a street.

When it approached an intersection, it struck a compact car, pushing it into the pedestrian.

Sparks flew from the truck's undercarriage, witnesses said, because it was missing a wheel. The pickup continued for three blocks before driving onto a snowback.

The driver got out and waved a gun at people on the street, telling them to stay away. Police arrested a man in the area shortly after.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

News flash, bud. A person died. Jurisdiction concerns are small potatoes in comparison.

[The Frenchman 0]

Hmm, now why havent I heard this on local news. It is only 30 minutes from my house.

[DracoPaladore 0]

@ Feb. 21 2004,00:28)]News flash, bud. A person died. Jurisdiction concerns are small potatoes in comparison.

But its still breaking international law without any sort of consideration to contacting the Canadian police. By the time they got there, the Canadian police might have had been prepared with a road block, cars, evacuation, anything.

The fact that they either ignored or forgot to even radio in might have been the reason she was killed. If they Police on Canadian soil have been contacted, it might have been avoided.

[brgnorway 0]

In Norway there have been several tragic deaths where innocent bystanders have been killed because of police chasing stolen cars etc. The police refuses to give up - the criminal tries harder to get away - speed increases and it all ends badly.

They now have a standing order to abort the chase if there is a severe risk of pursuing the car untill other drivers or pedestrians get killed.

I don't know about this case - but it seems a wee bit stupid to pursue a car into another country without taking radio contact.......

[ozanzac 0]

It's not quite clear if the American Cruisers were still following the vehicle up to the moment that it crashed.

While it's obvious that the American's overstepped their jurisdictional boundaries, if the American Police believed that the life of the carjack victim was at stake if they lost the vehicle and the Canadians failed to pick it up, then they were simply doing their duty, 'to serve and protect'. They would have been in the definite wrong if they continued the chase after the Canadians had control of the situation.

Imagine the furore had the Americans stopped at the border, and as a result, the gunman killed the carjacking victim, all because of a jurisdictional dilemma.

[DracoPaladore 0]

It's not quite clear if the American Cruisers were still following the vehicle up to the moment that it crashed.

While it's obvious that the American's overstepped their jurisdictional boundaries, if the American Police believed that the life of the carjack victim was at stake if they lost the vehicle and the Canadians failed to pick it up, then they were simply doing their duty, 'to serve and protect'. They would have been in the definite wrong if they continued the chase after the Canadians had control of the situation.

Imagine the furore had the Americans stopped at the border, and as a result, the gunman killed the carjacking victim, all because of a jurisdictional dilemma.

There was no victim with him. He stole the truck with no one in it. As well, they went all the way across the borders. He was alone in the truck, but armed. The truck he stole was from a worker, and the victim he had in his first car he left behind when he got a flat tire.

Quote[/b] ]Canadian officials are considering diplomatic action after four American police cruisers chased a stolen pickup through a border station in Niagara Falls and continued their pursuit into the busy tourist town

Not only that, everyone knows that if it was a reversed situation, this would have been blown even more out of proporation.

[ralphwiggum 6]

yup, catch 22 situation.

hopefully boths ideas will work some system out to deal with such situation.

[Pipski 0]

There's a company here in the UK selling immobilizers that can be activated remotely. At present they can only be activated when the stolen vehicle is parked but the police are requesting immobilizers that can be activated during a high speed chase, so any stolen car can be brought to a halt safely. Whether that happens will depend on how safe the tech is deemed to be. It's operated from a central tracking centre by the company that makes the immobilizers.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]There's a company here in the UK selling immobilizers that can be activated remotely.  At present they can only be activated when the stolen vehicle is parked but the police are requesting immobilizers that can be activated during a high speed chase, so any stolen car can be brought to a halt safely.  Whether that happens will depend on how safe the tech is deemed to be.  It's operated from a central tracking centre by the company that makes the immobilizers.

I know that the technology your talking about is available on selected new cars as an extra, and know of a couple of occasions where once police had tracked down the stolen car, told the communications centre to shut down the car(whilist the car was in motion), and promptly arrested the offender.

It's a great system, but I doubt many people would retro-fit it to their vehicles. As far as I know, their are insurance breaks for vehicles fitted with such systems, and beleive it would be a great deterant for future car theft if the systems were made compulsory, with the necessary monitoring fees being absorbed by rego (registration) fees.

My only fear is that legislative measures could give law enforcement agencies the ability to automatically dish out fines for speeding, as I've heard of at least one instant where a rental car company used similar Satelite Tracking based technology to try to charge a customer for excessive speed in one of their vehicles. Needless to say, the charges were dropped as such monitoring was unlawful.

[brgnorway 0]

There's a company here in the UK selling immobilizers that can be activated remotely.  At present they can only be activated when the stolen vehicle is parked but the police are requesting immobilizers that can be activated during a high speed chase, so any stolen car can be brought to a halt safely.  Whether that happens will depend on how safe the tech is deemed to be.  It's operated from a central tracking centre by the company that makes the immobilizers.

Hmmm....this must be something new because as far as I know an immobilizer is just an anti-theft system. A sort of codesystem that makes it harder for the thief to steal your car. We have it in our new Alfa Romeo!

A tracking device however is obligatory if you wan't to ensure your Ferrari or Maserati. The only thing it does is to send out a signal which can be picked up by tracking devices in cars, planes or choppers. The real irony is that over 80 percent of the cars left by the thieves on the roadside - are stolen again before it can be collected. At least untill now you could not "turn off" the engine by remote control - that would be very dangerous and possibly illegal due to pretty serious consequences. Also, the private companies that provide the tracking service are never in "pursuit" of the car/boats but only tracks the vehicles.

Immobilizers and trackingdevices are two different things.

[Pipski 0]

No, it is new and, at the moment, the company that makes it is only fitting it to industrial vehicles - HGVs, bulldozers etc.  They are seeking to branch out into domestic cars, hence the story I read in the press.  Companies in the US have been refusing to adopt the tech because of insurance difficulties and the risk of litigation if someone dies as a result of it.

EDIT:  Here you go

Quote[/b] ]The idea goes like this. A control box fitted to the car incorporates a miniature cellphone, a microprocessor and memory, and a GPS satellite positioning receiver. If the car is stolen, a coded cellphone signal will tell the unit to block the vehicle's engine management system and prevent the engine being restarted.

Vehicle security

There are even plans for immobilisers that shut down vehicles on the move, though there are fears over the safety implications of such a system.

[brgnorway 0]

Where is the contradiction? Didn't I say "it must be something new..... "

Untill now an immobilizer is something completely different. I have it in my car - thus I would know that there is a difference between an immobilizer and a tracking device because I have an immobilizer but not a tracking device .

So, why disagree?

[bn880 5]

@ Feb. 20 2004,18:28)]News flash, bud. A person died. Jurisdiction concerns are small potatoes in comparison.

This is a VERY serious issue. You americans are treating our border like it's another county or state. It is NOT, because of these cop's assanine stupidity and absurd procedure one of our citizens is dead. If it were up to me the drivers of the US police cars would be doing some looong jailtime in Canada.

You need to realize Canada is not your little playground.

[Pipski 0]

Where is the contradiction? Didn't I say "it must be something new..... "

Untill now an immobilizer is something completely different. I have it in my car - thus I would know that there is a difference between an immobilizer and a tracking device because I have an immobilizer but not a tracking device .

So, why disagree?

Who's disagreeing? I haven't disagreed with a word you said! Can you say `persecution complex'?

[dayglow 2]

@ Feb. 20 2004,18:28)]News flash, bud. A person died. Jurisdiction concerns are small potatoes in comparison.

This is a VERY serious issue.  You americans are treating our border like it's another county or state.  It is NOT, because of these cop's assanine stupidity and absurd procedure one of our citizens is dead.  If it were up to me the drivers of the US police cars would be doing some looong jailtime in Canada.

You need to realize Canada is not your little playground.

Jumping to conclusions without all the info right now. Different forces have different pursuit policies and agencies have to work together, even in Canada. Here in Calgary the city police and the RCMP have very different pursuit policies and often they go over different jurisdictions.

How populated is the boarder area? Did the police know for certain that he was going to cross the boarder, or are there many roads in the area? Once they realized he was making a run for the boarder, how is comms set up? I doubt there is direct radio contact, so phone calls have to be made and that takes time.

Did they follow across the boarder initially? Or when the car crashed and they guy took a gun out? Sorry, but seperate country be damned the police would be working in the best interest of the people present to ignore the boarder and control a offender that is dangerous. This would send the right message, that the boarder isn't a magical wall like it is in the movies.

Probably the only sad thing from this is that the fact that the man killed the woman on the Canadian side, so he will get less than 5 years for it, vs if it happened in the states where he would get life.

[brgnorway 0]

Who's disagreeing?  I haven't disagreed with a word you said!  

Oh Christ give me a brake will you

We were having a discussion about immobilisers - and I happened to say I actually have one in my new car. Immobiliser is an item already used in the car industry - albeit with another function than the article you refered to. I explained and you said no. However, what I said in my former post was that "it must be something new" ! Is it so hard to get that into your head?

Quote[/b] ]Can you say `persecution complex'?

You should perhaps calm down. It's not a good thing letting your emotions take control over you. If you have an issue with your temper do yourself and the rest of us a favour and don't post upsetting and unreasonable bullshit.

You have now been suggesting that I suffer from a "persecution complex" , and in another thread you've mentioned that certain (I take it you mean me among others) persons could be likened to mass murdererers and tyrants like Stalin, Khmer Rouge etc.

All this obviously based on your own dubious ideas about people sceptic towards the war in Iraq - or the one whom accidentaly happens to disagree with you in another topic.

You realy ought to do something about it - like growing up or something, because you act in an immature way regardless of your actual age.

[qUiLL 0]

why dont they just make some joint-border police force that doesnt have to worry about boundaries? personally i think its really crappy that you HAVE to stop at the border when pursuing someone because what if police on the other side of the border arent ready in time? as was mentioned before, notifying the other police isnt exactly instant.

not to mention what if the guy happened to be a mass murderer or something? what should we let him go and take refuge in another country just because canadian police cant reach him in time? its sad to hear that the woman was killed but did the police stop the chase before or after she was killed? according to one of the articles the police turned back shortly after crossing the border but they dont say if it was after he hit the woman?

[bn880 5]

@ Feb. 20 2004,18:28)]News flash, bud. A person died. Jurisdiction concerns are small potatoes in comparison.

This is a VERY serious issue. You americans are treating our border like it's another county or state. It is NOT, because of these cop's assanine stupidity and absurd procedure one of our citizens is dead. If it were up to me the drivers of the US police cars would be doing some looong jailtime in Canada.

You need to realize Canada is not your little playground.

Jumping to conclusions without all the info right now. Different forces have different pursuit policies and agencies have to work together, even in Canada. Here in Calgary the city police and the RCMP have very different pursuit policies and often they go over different jurisdictions.

How populated is the boarder area? Did the police know for certain that he was going to cross the boarder, or are there many roads in the area? Once they realized he was making a run for the boarder, how is comms set up? I doubt there is direct radio contact, so phone calls have to be made and that takes time.

Did they follow across the boarder initially? Or when the car crashed and they guy took a gun out? Sorry, but seperate country be damned the police would be working in the best interest of the people present to ignore the boarder and control a offender that is dangerous. This would send the right message, that the boarder isn't a magical wall like it is in the movies.

Probably the only sad thing from this is that the fact that the man killed the woman on the Canadian side, so he will get less than 5 years for it, vs if it happened in the states where he would get life.

Well, I base what I said on what I know so far, and it's pretty much clear.

They simply plowed across into Canada without any regard for much other than chasing at full speed.

[Pipski 0]

Who's disagreeing?  I haven't disagreed with a word you said!  

Oh Christ give me a brake will you

We were having a discussion about immobilisers - and I happened to say I actually have one in my new car. Immobiliser is an item already used in the car industry - albeit with another function than the article you refered to. I explained and you said no. However, what I said in my former post was that "it must be something new" ! Is it so hard to get that into your head?

brg, I was not disagreeing with you! Seriously! I realize that I started the reply with the word `no' but that wasn't meant to imply that you were wrong! I would have hoped that the rest of the post made that clear but mebbe not. By `no' I meant that `no it isn't the same kind of immobilizer / tracker fitted to your Ferrari' (or whatever). Only reason I posted at all was to give the link to the full article `cause it appeared to be something that interested people and that they weren't aware of. I'm CERTAINLT not angry!

As far as I'm concerned a debate in one thread is totally separate to one in another, rest assured. (I hope I've dealt in the other one with the issues re: likening you to Stalin - for the record that's not quite what I said). I'm sorry if my post cause you upset, that wasn't the intention. I can accept that the comment about `persecution complex' was a little over the top. I gladly withdraw it, it was just me being a smart alec.

Quote[/b] ]All this obviously based on your own dubious ideas about people sceptic towards the war in Iraq - or the one whom accidentaly happens to disagree with you in another topic.

I'm as sceptical as the next man about war in Iraq, as far as that goes we probably agree more than you seem to think. But it doesn't inform my position about everything. And like I say, what happens in another thread, stays there.

If you want to debate it further we should probably do it by the messenger though.