• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An officer saved a man in a wheelchair stuck on train tracks. Her bodycam video shows the rescue

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The heroism of this cop deserves honoring:

An officer saved a man in a wheelchair stuck on train tracks. Her bodycam video shows the rescue

It's the kind of thing you see in the movies. For one California police officer, it was just a day on the job.
Officer Erica Urrea spotted a man in a wheelchair who appeared to be stuck on train tracks, according to a news release from her department in Lodi, near Sacramento.

As the railroad crossing arms started to come down, Urrea sprang into action on Wednesday morning, jumping out of her patrol car and running toward the 66-year-old.

With the train's horn growing louder, she pulled the man from his wheelchair and off the tracks just in time, the department said.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The heroism of this cop deserves honoring:

An officer saved a man in a wheelchair stuck on train tracks. Her bodycam video shows the rescue

It's the kind of thing you see in the movies. For one California police officer, it was just a day on the job.
Officer Erica Urrea spotted a man in a wheelchair who appeared to be stuck on train tracks, according to a news release from her department in Lodi, near Sacramento.

As the railroad crossing arms started to come down, Urrea sprang into action on Wednesday morning, jumping out of her patrol car and running toward the 66-year-old.

With the train's horn growing louder, she pulled the man from his wheelchair and off the tracks just in time, the department said.
I'm wondering if maybe this was a possible suicide attempt? Not much to go on, other than when she came running up, he was looking down like he didn't care. But that could be because he knew the end was upon him, and was saying his final prayer? Not sure, but either way, wow, what a rescue!
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What will we do when the police are defunded? Let people die on the railroad tracks?
Countries with much reduced police forces still have other social services, and an excess of people who preform emergency services like this. Do you think the person in question wouldn't or couldn't have done this if they weren't a cop?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm wondering if maybe this was a possible suicide attempt? Not much to go on, other than when she came running up, he was looking down like he didn't care. But that could be because he knew the end was upon him, and was saying his final prayer? Not sure, but either way, wow, what a rescue!
I wouldn't be too quick to assume that's the reason. There's been a phenomenal heat wave in California and the person could have been having a medical event which rendered them unconscious or near unconscious. Whatever the case, just glad they're alright.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
The heroism of this cop deserves honoring:

An officer saved a man in a wheelchair stuck on train tracks. Her bodycam video shows the rescue

It's the kind of thing you see in the movies. For one California police officer, it was just a day on the job.
Officer Erica Urrea spotted a man in a wheelchair who appeared to be stuck on train tracks, according to a news release from her department in Lodi, near Sacramento.

As the railroad crossing arms started to come down, Urrea sprang into action on Wednesday morning, jumping out of her patrol car and running toward the 66-year-old.

With the train's horn growing louder, she pulled the man from his wheelchair and off the tracks just in time, the department said.
image.JPG
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Defunding the police, has absolutely nothing to do with getting rid of all the police. Read up on it.
Defunding means allocating less funds for the police, which in turn means that there will be less cops on the payroll. Less cops means less patrols. This officer was on patrol, according to the article.
Do you think the person in question wouldn't or couldn't have done this if they weren't a cop?
But would they have even been around? It says the cop was on patrol.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Defunding means allocating less funds for the police, which in turn means that there will be less cops on the payroll. Less cops means less patrols. This officer was on patrol, according to the article.

But would they have even been around? It says the cop was on patrol.
I think you are overestimating just how much is caught by cops while being on patrol. This was a chance encounter, not because there are hordes of cops doing patrol. You cannot correlate more cops on the street, with pure chance interventions like this.

Where is the data to support that correlation? If you can show statistically these sorts of things happen more often when you have more cops on the street, you might have an argument. But as this is, that's more than a stretch, to say the least. It has no merit as an argument to have more cops on the street.

There's no actual data to look at to make such a claim as having merit. It may sound logical on the surface, but it's not.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I think you are overestimating just how much is caught by cops while being on patrol. This was a chance encounter, not because there are hordes of cops doing patrol. You cannot correlate more cops on the street, with pure chance interventions like this.
Please clarify something.
You seem to be arguing that having fewer cops on patrol will not change the number of interactions with the public. Is that really what you mean to argue?
Tom
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Please clarify something.
You seem to be arguing that having fewer cops on patrol will not change the number of interactions with the public. Is that really what you mean to argue?
Tom
Not at all. I was saying that that claim the poster made was fallacious. That a cop just happened to be there at that exact second, was purely by random chance. Not because of increased patrol presence. For that to be a factor, you'd have to have a cop on every corner, 24/7. There's a lot of square footage to cover, for a cop to be just where an accident is about to happen, at that exact second, right there, seeing it.

It's nonsense to claim this incident supports a larger police presence, based upon that argument. That argument doesn't fly in any sense of the word. There was infinitely more possibility that it would be a random bystander being there at that second, than it would be a trained police officer.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I think you are overestimating just how much is caught by cops while being on patrol. This was a chance encounter, not because there are hordes of cops doing patrol. You cannot correlate more cops on the street, with pure chance interventions like this.

Where is the data to support that correlation? If you can show statistically these sorts of things happen more often when you have more cops on the street, you might have an argument. But as this is, that's more than a stretch, to say the least. It has no merit as an argument to have more cops on the street.

There's no actual data to look at to make such a claim as having merit. It may sound logical on the surface, but it's not.
I agree that it was a chance encounter. However, the plausibility rate of such encounters goes down when there are less people patrolling less areas for less time (a consequence of having less money).
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree that it was a chance encounter. However, the plausibility rate of such encounters goes down when there are less people patrolling less areas for less time (a consequence of having less money).
Not by much at all, considering the odds. That's like saying if you have 2 cops outside, the chances are higher one will be struck by lightning. Instead of 7 trillion to 1 chance, it's 7 trillion to 2 chance. Not much of an improvement on the odds.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
But would they have even been around? It says the cop was on patrol.
As I said, places like Japan with a much reduced police force have greater social services in other avenues including emergency services which do patrols. It's amazing what you can get funded when you're not paramiliterizing police.
 
Top