THREAD 252
252. The infamous crash
by sourceofnews, 1/14/08 12:29 ET
I have spoken with Chief Margeson to try to get a clearer understanding of the accusations some of you are making. None of you had the guts to come out and say you were referring to Tim Margeson and that the high ranking police officer was Chief Margeson. There now you have that!!
There was some confusion on my part because I was getting bits and pieces of information from computer files and at different times and from different dispatchers.
This should clear it up.
In 2007, young Mr. Margeson was involved in a crash on Spring Road near "H" Street. He was NOT the driver. He was slightly injured. There was a news article and photo in The Sentinel. There was also a news release.
In July of last year, the young Mr. Margeson was returning home about 8 a.m. from spending the night at a friend's house. As he travelled on Acre Drive, he was briefly blinded by bright sunlight. This caused him to sneeze, lose control of the vehicle, crash into a utility pole, shearing it off.
This occurred close to the Margeson residence. The young Margeson walked home and told his father. It was Chief Margeson who was the first to report the crash to Carlisle PD.
This was a non-reportable accident, meaning that no one was injured, killed or did the vehicle need to be towed from the scene. Officer Cloud was the investigating officer. He reported the damaged pole to the utility. He cited young Margeson with careless driving (You can check with the Magesterial District Judge), and Officer Cloud did NOT receive a promotion.
Because by state law this was a non-reportable crash, no official accident report was completed as is the case with all non-reportable crashes. And there was no news release prepared because it was a non-reportable. Had it been reportable, any news release would have only referred to the driver as a 17-year-old.
Chief Margeson's insurance company paid the utility $4,000 to replace the pole. He purchased a $5 recycling bin for his neighbor, because it had been destroyed, and his insurance company paid out $7,000 to have his vehicle repaired.
That's it!!!
252.1. I see ONE MAJOR thing wrong
by scoops170013, 1/14/08 15:06 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
Mr. Mayor. This matches my source in the PD who said the son went home and the father would not let the lower ranking officer see the son. The major thing wrong with this is that the son LEFT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT. Did he not have a cell phone with him? Thank you for looking into this, but are you sure you are being provided the correct information? Who was the OIC the day of the accident happened? Can you provide their name? You are calling my source wrong, but this person is a member of the CPD. Why would they provide bad information?
252.1.1. Yes, I'm calling your source wrong!!
by sourceofnews, 1/14/08 15:30 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
However, I'd be happy to speak with your source. But, like the rest of you, he doesn't have the nerve to face me either. He should probably receive a spore for NOT understanding the difference between a reportable and non reportable crash.
I explained to you initially this is a NON-reportable accident. Thus there is no reason to notify the police. However, the police were notified by the two people mentioned because of the property damage and restitution was made.
Tell your cop friend to look me up.
252.1.1.1. FACTS
by scoops170013, 1/14/08 20:12 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
The location was given along with a hint at who the person involved was. Mr. Mayor stated the person involved was a minor and could not be specific. Then after pointing out minors are printed, Mr Mayor stated the news was released but not printed. Then when a police person gave specific information and it was pointed out the person was not a minor, Mayor Wilson come out with specific information to include the person involved. The facts have always been the location and a High Ranking officer. Mr Mayor. When we first started talking about this subject, I was on your side. After putting down an officer and myself, I can no longer help but think this is a complete cover up. How many high ranking officers do you have who live on that specific street and who has a son that drives? Mayor, who was the Officer in Charge during the time this all took place?
252.1.1.1.1. If the accident in question
by PAPOSSE, 1/15/08 9:20 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
Involved Chief Margeson's son, then he is a minor, or was at the time of the accident you idiot.. there fore your "source" is either really stupid or feeding a huge line of crap!!!
252.1.1.2. did he say it was a COP?
by NYdude, 1/14/08 22:33 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
Mr Mayor... Did he say his source was a police officer? Maybe it is a non-police officer employee in the CPD? hmmmm?
252.2. Mr. Mayor
by gulfvet, 1/14/08 17:18 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
Dont get your knickers all twisted because people question your postings. You posted first that there was no media release, then alluded to one not being picked up by the media, and now are again saying there was no media release.
Do you see why people question your postings??? You supposedly came here to provide info, which is great. But with that comes the expectation that you should be 100% accurate with what, in your official capacity as Mayor, you provide in response to questions posed.
What you provided sounds plasable, but your changing statements dont add much in the manner of credence on this particular matter.
252.3. Vehicle Code
by Keywest, 1/14/08 18:19 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
Mr. Mayor, correct me if I am wrong.Under section 3745 of the PA Vehicle Code, having property damage woulds have made this a reportable incident.
252.3.1. Keywest and scoops
by CarlisleLOL, 1/14/08 19:53 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
Thank you for the insight. So we are being told that if we hit a street pole and someones personal property. Then leave the scene and walk home. It is a non reportable offense? Come on!
252.3.2. Keywest
by gulfvet, 1/15/08 6:38 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
Short answer is no. Subsection 3745 requires notification to the owner of the property, and the local PD's nearest office. Only question here is whether or not walking home and telling your father (who it appears is the Chief) is the same as notifying the local station. It would be a serious leap of legal logic to reallly argue otherwise.
Subsection 3747 allows that it is reportable and must be done if the vehicle must be towed. Now, according to how the Mayor stated it happened (the vehicle was driven away) even though there was property damage subsection 3747 allows for it to not be a reportable incident.
But it is interesting how the details kept shifting around. First there was no media report, then Mr. Mayor alluded to seeing something, then there was nothing sent, then all the facts were gathered through bits and pieces of information.
Like watching shifting sands from someone who, given he is posting here in his official position, should not be doing such.
252.4. sounds Believable?
by NYdude, 1/14/08 22:48 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
I'm going to assume "young Mr. Margeson" was driving on the "east / west" section of Acre Drive and not the "north / south" section?
In addition I will also assume he was heading EAST? towards the large bright mass in the sky we call the sun??? It could have happened that way, and I will assume if that is the official report it did happen that way.
I would love to know what kind of vehicle the Chief has that cut off a utility pole and substained $7,000 worth of damage and wasn't towed from the scene? I want one of those!!
Charging him with careless driving when it was clearly an accident (based on the facts) is a little much don't you think?
I can't fault him for walking home to tell Dad... I would have done the same thing. Interesting version? Scoops... what is your version?
252.4.1. Could have saved $5?
by NYdude, 1/14/08 22:52 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/14/08
Someone should have pointed out to the Chief... he had already paid the insurance deductible and the recycling bin you mentioned Mr Mayor should have been paid for by the insurance company as well if it was in fact a casualty of the crash and private property? right?
Why pay the $5 when the insurance company is already paying out over $11,000 for a sneeze? Right?????
252.4.2. The sun
by Keywest, 1/15/08 9:49 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
At the time of impact with the light pole, the vehicle of conversation, a chevrolet suburban was traveling directly north. There is a sharp turn in the street that would have put the vehicle in western direction of travel before the accident but that is a few hundred yards prior to the struck pole
252.4.2.1. I believe...
by AVGFAN, 1/15/08 13:26 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
the pole was on the right hand side of Acre Drive going south about 50/60 feet from Avon Drive. Sun would not have been a factor.
252.4.3. More information provided
by scoops170013, 1/15/08 13:32 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
Accidents - In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania there are legally two types of motor vehicle accidents: Reportable and Non-Reportable. A Reportable accident involves physical injury to a person, and/or DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (in the case of damage to a vehicle � the vehicle must be damaged to such a degree that it can not be driven safely from the scene). Motor laws of the Commonwealth REQUIRE that all parties remain at the scene and that the local police be notified IMMEDIATELY; FAILURE to do so will result in criminal charges being filed against the driver. A Non-Reportable accident is just the opposite, involving no injuries or serious damage to property (a vehicle can be driven from the scene safely). Here, legally the local police need only be notified if the damage to property has occurred without the owner�s knowledge (owner/operator not present).Two things of distinction. One is the damage to property and leaving the scene of the accident.The person who informed me of details stated the father refused to let his subordinate(s) see the son. Even when confronted by the OIC he still refused. The OIC was not Officer Cloud.
252.4.3.1. scoops
by gulfvet, 1/15/08 17:02 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
Based on the provided information this was not a reportable accident.
Damage to property is not a requirement for either reportable, or non-reportable accidents. Death or serious injury or the vehicle being unable to drive under customary power without further damage or hazard are the criteria for reporting. Subsection 3746 is pretty clear on this.
And subsection 3745 requires notification of the accident to the nearest local PD without unnecessary delay.
252.4.3.1.1. Gulfvet
by scoops170013, 1/15/08 17:23 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
Based on this whole scenario, is the truth really being told here? In my gut, I would say "no" based on everything that has been posted. Do you think there would be any way to verify what the truth really is?
252.4.3.1.1.1. I am afraid that
by gulfvet, 1/16/08 5:54 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/16/08
this has become a case of 'it is what it is' due to the shifting statements, conflicting accounts and general confusion that seems to be prevalent from those who should have been able to get the facts correct the first time.
If (note IF) there were some positional adjusting done regarding the incident in question then those who did so, and those above them, are now stuck having to spin a fanciful yarn to try and color it good.
If (again IF) there was no positional adjusting done then it really would now just be what it is.
One would have thought that the facts (which clearly could have been provided at the onset of the discussion) would have been put out to squash it, as opposed to the mulitude of conflicting statements that were provided. The fact that so many varying statements, all under the guise of official capacity no less, were offered on it does not lend a great amount of credence to the latest version.
Turning into the sun causes one to sneeze and then to lose control of a vehicle???? I have heard hundreds of excuses for things that have happened over the years but honestly that is a first for me. I did add it to my little book of funny, and not so funny, excuses that someday I will get published.
252.4.3.1.1.1.1. A great injustice has occured
by scoops170013, 1/16/08 16:21 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/16/08
Both in this forum and to the Son involved. By Overseers of our local Justice trying to hide or cover up the facts, the son now knows he can get always with what other people cannot. With this knowledge he can now put you and me in jeopardy whenever he wants and get away with it.
The statement "The sun was in my eyes and I sneezed" which caused him to hit a pole and a garbage can is one that you would suspect to be heard coming out of a late night comedians mouth and not a police write up as a non-reportable accident. And rather than call the police or notify the property owner, he can just walk home knowing it will be covered up everytime.
Gulfvet, could the OIC on the scene have requested State Police get involved to eliminate any thought of a cover up? My source seemed to think knowing who the OIC was at the time would be accountable to getting to the truth of what really happened.
252.4.3.1.1.1.1.1. One of many
by CarlisleLOL, 1/17/08 10:14 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/17/08
unfortunately.
252.4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1. recommend using the deer excuse
by NYdude, 1/17/08 18:05 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/17/08
I recommend using the DEER RAN OUT IN FRONT OF ME excuse? Deer run through developments all the time.
IF.... and I mean a HUGE IF!! If there was a cover up "your pd source" should contact the AG's office and remain anonymous....
I said IF... so no one can accuse me of head hunting. Like I said before... no one is above the law!
Leaving the scene of a crash or drinking after pounding them back at applebees! NO ONE!!!!
252.4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. You know NYdude
by CarlisleLOL, 1/17/08 18:52 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/17/08
he probably could have said and done anything and it wouldn't have effected the outcome. It's safe to say that an officer�s son got off easy because he was an officers son. Not the first time and I'm sure it's not going to be the last time. And no cop in their right mind would dare try and pull another Serpico in Carlisle. That would be tantamount to employment suicide.
252.5. You let them badger you
by CarlisleGirl, 1/15/08 8:48 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
into revealing the name of a minor. No need to give in to that kind of pressure.
252.6. thanks
by EricBlair, 1/15/08 15:23 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/15/08
Thanks for clarification
252.7. Told all of U idiots
by janjanshome, 1/17/08 17:15 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/17/08
didn't I?
252.7.1. Hope you know that his Daddy
by CarlisleLOL, 1/17/08 17:24 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/17/08
won't help you out when you get busted. You'll be on your own. Unless he's with you. That may change the outcome?
252.7.1.1. Stupid
by janjanshome, 1/17/08 17:47 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/17/08
I'm still a juvee so I don't need his old man to get me out of nuthin.
252.7.1.1.1. Thanks
by CarlisleGirl, 1/18/08 2:48 ET
Re: The infamous crash by sourceofnews, 1/18/08
for the clarification.