Oculus VR Co-founder Andrew Reisse Killed In Auto Collision

ccguy writes with this excerpt from a sad report on CNET: "Oculus Rift co-founder and lead engineer Andrew Reisse was hit in Santa Ana, where he was a resident, by a speeding car being pursued by police." Reisse was killed, says the report, when the car "slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse at Flower Street and MacArthur Boulevard."

Comments

FTA

[rmdingler]

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

Re:FTA

[dunkelfalke]

Let us be fair. Cars kill too many innocents. Cities should be for the people, not for cars!

Re:FTA

[gl4ss]

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

the offence was fleeing after a firefight.. apparently the perps were on probation too(and had warrants on their heads).

Re:FTA

[kurt555gs]

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Re:FTA

[Dins]

When you outlaw cars, only outlaws will have cars.

Re:FTA

[Reliable Windmill]

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Sure, but no one is out on the streets to kill people with their car, yet people get hit and die, and if you take X * 4000lbs of travelling metal out of the equations of a city, there will be fewer deaths, among other benefits. Motor vehicles should really be reserved for when they're actually needed. Not that it would matter in this case, but you get me.

Re:FTA

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . is one of the perps named "Justin Bieber", by any chance . . . ?

Re:FTA

[Luckyo]

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens and police should just wait for them to show up again and not try to prevent them from doing it again. What a nice example of police brutality!

Sometimes, it actually helps to read the source:

Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Re:FTA

[cffrost]

Because if they had suspended the chase, the offending vehicle would have slowed down and obeyed all traffic laws thereafter?

Probably — why risk wrecking the vehicle or attracting further attention once the pursuing police have fallen back?

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

And in cities, they typically are reserved for this. "when needed" includes "i need to get somewhere that's not well served by public transportation"

Which in the US unfortunately is pretty much every trip that has an endpoint outside the core of the city....

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said."

Still not clear, but the situation was bad enough to warrant a shooting by police

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Re:FTA

[danceswithtrees]

Another article gives a bit more information than the one in the summary:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

It appears the chase was preceded by a "physical altercation" and a "fatal officer-involved shooting." You can also make an argument for testosterone-fueled fights and shootings but it seems that the police had reason to be chasing these guys and the alleged bad guys had a reason to run. Oh yeah, they were also all gang members on probation.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely what the police do. If a pursuit will lead to a prolonged, high speed chase, the police cruisers are supposed to be pulled back and a helicopter is used to follow the perpetrators until they can be apprehended more safely.

Re:FTA

[aitikin]

Which in the US unfortunately is pretty much every trip that has an endpoint outside the core of the city....

Are you kidding me? Public transit in the US is abysmal even when you're endpoint is within the core of the city.

Re:FTA

[ClioCJS]

Anytime someone gets killed by someone, we should take it away from all the people who don't kill anyone with it.

Also, when one kid in class chews gum, everyone in the class should get detention.

When a right is abused, it should be taken away too. Because of Westboro Baptist Church, we should repeal the 1st Amendment.

Re:FTA

[Grand Facade]

Public transit kills their share, plus they are one of the biggest hazards on the road. moving violation

Re:FTA

[candeoastrum]

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens

What does being white have to do with anything?

Re: FTA

[O('_')O_Bush]

Unfortunately, with the large drug trade, these kinds of gang related shootouts are regular occurances in some parts of the U.S. And frankly, I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.

For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights, while high-speed chases move that danger to places where people like this engineer can get caught up in it.

Re:FTA

[hairyfeet]

Don't think you are from around these parts friend. You see America? Don't really have any public transportation to speak of except in a few select cities (and often in only select places in those cities) and what little public transport we have? You wouldn't want to ride on it, its not very nice in most places.

So unless you expect everyone to walk dozens of miles its not like there is much of a choice friend. Heck in my state there is a single bus line, which is very lousy, and which only follows a little circuit that covers MAYBE 20% of the capital. That's it, that is all there is. If you need to go anywhere besides that little circuit, or to any other city in the state? Tough shit.

Just a little FYI there, for while I hear other countries actually have public transport and in some places its actually quite nice that sure as hell doesn't describe a good 85%+ of the USA. Again using my state for example you drive or you get to "enjoy" living in the shittiest neighborhood in the state capital, since it only really goes to that one dirt poor area and to the malls.

Re:FTA

[redback]

*your

Re:FTA

[Fallen Kell]

This is why many sane cities and police departments have strict guidelines for engaging in a chase. For instance, this would never have happened in Philadelphia, as a chase requires deadly violence to have already occurred by the suspects involved. The rational being that you put more people at risk of death by chasing a suspect than simply letting them go on their way, unless that suspect has already proven that he/she is putting the population at risk of immediate violence/death.

Re:FTA

[g0bshiTe]

True, but if you simply remove people from the cities you have the same result. Then the cars can still roam free in their natural habitat.

Re:FTA

[g0bshiTe]

Also not all guns are banned due to shooting incidents, so in this case only Dodge Chargers should be banned.

Re: FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

My commute to work in dfw which is about half through the metroplex is 50 miles that's 80 km. I ain't going to bicycle 160 km a day with above 40 degrees Celsius temperature. thats the same distance as between amsterdam and maastricht, i dont belive even the bicycle crazy dutch commute by bike between those cities. i think most europeans just dont understand the massive size of the us continent and cities that were built for cars. Just because lilleput countries like Netherlands has the bicycle infrastructure doesn't mean that's available or even possible in other countries.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights,

A similar thing could be said for police chases. "For the most part police chases only effect the people being chased."

I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.

Tell that to the bystander killed in their next shootout.

There have been many instances where innocent people have been injured or killed by drug gang violence. I seem to remember a child being killed in a crib when a bullet came through the wall during a drive by shooting.

It would be OK if gang violence effected only the gangs but it does not. It terrorizes entire neighborhoods.

The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

If cars were banned people would just leave the cities. Might be a good thing after generations of living like rats.

Re:FTA

[Alef]

For what it's worth, that is the standard operating procedure for Swedish police: They fall back and essentially just track the fleeing vehicle at a distance, then coordinate a road block using other vehicles, or just wait until the suspects eventually stop and apprehend them then. The reasoning is that, in most cases, a close pursuit will create even greater danger for innocent bystanders, and for the people in the fleeing car, some of which could be innocent as well (e.g. children).

Re:FTA

[Jappus]

If cars were banned people would just leave the cities. Might be a good thing after generations of living like rats.

Actually, the opposite would happen.

If you would ban cars, people would leave their suburbs in droves and return back into the city core.

After all, that's how it was from the very first cities of Mesopotamia (~65k inhabitants for the city of Ur in 2000 BC!) over the cities and city-states of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece (~100k inhabitants in 1000-500BC), continuing with Ancient Rome and the first large cities in South America (up to 250k inhabitants) all the way to the metropolises of the industrial Revolution (London, Paris, Berlin; with millions of inhabitants) and finally the mega-cities of today; like Tokio, Shanghai, Singapore, Mexico and New York City with each near or exceeding tens of millions of inhabitants.

As you notice; all the way up to the very recent histories, these cities grew from ~65k people to over 6 million people; all without the help of cars. The jump from then to now (when cars were available) only pushed that up by a factor of 2.

Cars are actually the reason why cities grew slower than before, with the suburbs and "greater metropolitan" areas soaking up most of the excess population that'd otherwise live much closer to the city core where they could make use of public transportation much more easily. You would see nearby cities grow together, until the boundary between them vanishes; like the Ruhrpott [1] (which grew without the presence of cars) which is more like a huge city with multiple city cores.

So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrpott

Re:FTA

[Darby]

Probably -- why risk wrecking the vehicle or attracting further attention once the pursuing police have fallen back?

Now I hate cops for the lying nazi fuckholes the vast majority are as much as any sane person, but I still think "possibly" would fit better than "probably".

My brother's car and the other cars at his apartment were broken into and robbed. We interrupted them and almost got shot. They left and we filed a police report. An hour later the police picked us up and drove us ~20 miles to where they (different cops obviously) had pulled over the people who did it. They were driving over 100 miles an hour in a stolen car with several unregistered guns in the car....20 miles from the scene of the crime. They would have gotten away clean if they acted in the rational manner you suggest.

Shit like that happens a lot.

Elaborate computer crimes or Ocean's 11 type shit takes some serious brain power. Most run of the mill crime just takes balls and often a lack of intelligence rather than an overabundance.

Re:FTA

[stoploss]

Take it from me: bicycle lanes are confined to larger metro areas, and even then coverage is minor.

Instead, bikers are driving in the road lanes, as is required by law in most places... bikes aren't allowed on sidewalks (where they exist). This often upsets people in cars because there's some biker tooling along at 20 kph in the middle of a single available road lane with a speed limit of 75 kph and thus the biker is restricting all the traffic.

Besides, as another poster pointed out: is it really ideal to bike 100+ km a day in order to commute to/from work? Note that taking the bus isn't practical in most cases due to "inability to get there from here" (in the case of commuting to another area), very poor latency where available, having to switch lines often, and having to walk 2+ km at each end to reach a terminal from home and work. And there are essentially no commuter trains anywhere in the US (this is a reasonable first pass estimate).

Having a car (or carpooling) is essential. I stay fit using methods other than biking to work and then having to baste in my own stink all day (because, you know, most workplaces don't have showers here).

So, you can chalk this up as "sorry, dude, cool idea but it won't work here in most cases" rather than a defense of the stereotypically obese American couch potato who drives their car to get to their mailbox 10 meters away.

Re:FTA

[rhizome]

apparently the perps were on probation too(and had warrants on their heads).

So, in other words the police knew who they were and had their license plates.

Also, I've not seen anything describing "a firefight," the only description I've seen is that a cop shot someone. Not the same thing.

Re:FTA

[drinkypoo]

It's interesting that your reply and those above all mention how poor public transport is, but none mention lack of bicycle lanes.

That's partly because Americans are (on average) lazy spoiled brats who have never been anywhere to see what the rest of the world is like, and partly because our country is bigger than a postage stamp. Many of our states are bigger than many of your countries. Indeed, all but nine of our fifty states are larger than entire nation of The Netherlands.

You can't really blame USians for not having seen the world, though. Many of us are broke, most of the rest can't get the time off if they do have a job, to the North is a country that's much like ours but colder and to the South is a country that's basically experiencing a sort of on and off civil war between druglords and druglords and between cops and druglords. Meanwhile, Europeans can hop on a nice fucking train and visit another country for a few euros. And their money will even work there.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but everything about my county is inappropriate for bicycling, and I'm also asthmatic. So really, the only kind of cycling you're going to see me doing is downhill. Given the choice, I'm going to drive (or whatever) to the top, too. But for most of the year it's crappy cold or shitty hot, so even if I were in good condition it would be a bad idea. This is also a really good place to get run over by some old curmudgeon who hates bicyclists or just someone on a lot of drugs, prescription or otherwise. It would make more sense to flap my arms and try to fly.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

1. They do chase from helicopters when available. The patrol cars need to stay in contact with the fleeing vehicle until the helicopter arrives. In this case the accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than two minutes into a chase and a helicopter would not have been on scene yet.
2. Felons know about helicopters and try to out run them too.
3. Police do call off chases in certain circumstances. In this case the fleeing suspects had just shot at police and would be a high priority to apprehend..

So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.

The deaths are not needless; they are a byproduct of catching criminals. We also accept similar risks every day just crossing the street. On the other hand are we to just accept that suspects who flee will almost always get away?
The police are in a hard spot. If they pursue and someone dies they are the bad guys. If they don't pursue and the felons kill someone later, they are the bad guys. It is a no win situation and one can't please everyone all the time.

In the nine year period 1994 through 2002 1088 deaths were of people not in the fleeing vehicle, That is 121 deaths per year in the entire United States. Considering the number of high speed pursuits that occur that is a very small number. That may sound harsh but the benefits of apprehending criminals, who have demonstrated their lack of respect for their lives and the lives of others by entering the high speed chase, outweigh the costs.

Re:FTA

[Solandri]

As you notice; all the way up to the very recent histories, these cities grew from ~65k people to over 6 million people; all without the help of cars. The jump from then to now (when cars were available) only pushed that up by a factor of 2.

You're comparing 4000 years of growth and 100 years of growth as if they're somehow equivalent?

So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.

That conclusion doesn't fit the data. Here's U.S. census data from 1800 to 1990 of the percentage of the population living in urban vs. rural areas. As you can see, the advent of widespread car ownership does not correlate with a slowdown in urbanization as you're hypothesizing.

What's going on is that in order to support a city, you need to be able to transport goods and resources in and out of the city. Improved transportation facilitated that, and allowed cities to grow bigger than before. If a city needs x amount of food every day, and transportation in the 1800s by horse and wagon can only bring food from a 25 mile radius into the city in a day, then the city's population is capped at whatever food you can grow in a 25 mile radius (this is a simplified explanation - I know some food can survive trips of greater than a day). In the 1900s transportation improved to where you can bring in food from a 250 mile radius, and thus the city's population cap was higher. Current trucking and speed limits pushes that radius out to about 500 miles (though modern refrigeration increases the timeframe to several days), and so our cities can be much larger. The start of the shift to an urban population in the U.S. actually correlates almost exactly with the advent of railroads (1830s-1850s).

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the policy in many areas of the U.S. as well. The final decision though rests on how easy it will be to track the fleeing vehicle. In a rural area or on a highway, it's pretty easy. In a city with lots of buildings and parking structures, not so much.

In a city with lots of buildings and parking structures, it would be even easier.

About 20 years ago, there was a rare robbing of a jewelry shop in a city center using guns done in Asia, where guns were outlawed. The criminals drove their car and flee. Chasing them would exactly replicate the problem you see in the article, innocent bystanders would be put in danger.

So what did the local police do? They simply switched ALL traffic lights in the area to red, then surrounded the area on foot (the traffic lights outside the area remained normal, so the police can quickly drive to the perimeter, then proceed on foot). Parking structures nearby? Just call their management and tell them to stop allowing any car in/out of the lot (just one switch from the security guard posts, all parking lots in the city are paid lots, and those always have someone on guard in case the payment facilities are not working. The guard can just switch off the payment system and no car can enter or leave.)

The criminals now found themselves stuck in a traffic jam, and the police totally surrounded the area. Once they get off the car, they will be spotted. But if they remained in the car, they have no where to run. Once the police located the criminals, they can change the traffic lights in other road sections to clear nearby of bystanders, and proceed to surround the smaller area.

In the end, the criminals were caught without anyone being hurt.

THAT is how police do their work if their priority is "protect and serve", in that order. Protecting innocents is the first priority, criminals can be tracked and caught afterwards even if they got away once.

Last words.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's so real, it's like it's coming right at me !"

Bus factor

[Edulix]

It's a strong thing to say, but this is what happens when the bus factor strikes.

Please update the Oculus wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know enough about the gentleman to do so but it stands to reason he deserves mention on their wiki page, albeit posthumously.

At a glance i see no mention of him and it appears he was rather integral.

Re:Reckless Cops

[thegarbz]

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before running your mouth (figuratively speaking).

From the ABC:

When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said. ...

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Or do you condone that we just let anyone who flees from a fatal firefight by getting into a car just escape because catching them may be a bit risky?

Re:He should not have been pursued

[Charliemopps]

Oh really?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/two-dead-after-police-car-chase-8554266.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/sep/04/azelle-rodney-shooting-police-chase-video

As usual some British asshole uses the word "yank" and "Cowboy" to describe something that's happening in his own backyard. This isn't a US problem, it's a police problem. If anything, UK police have an even bigger sense of "We're your mommy and daddy, do what we say" than they do in the US.

Re:Reckless Cops

[ClioCJS]

It is actually progressive policy in many jurisdictions that you disengage a police chase when it becomes a danger to the public, as this chase was. The police actually acted as an accelerant to the harm here. The criminal activity that originally started this might have just been them smoking a joint. In this case, the major harm to society was caused by the police. This is also why it's against police policy to shoot at a fleeing vehicle. "OMG do you condone letting someone dangerous get away, just because the police might shoot an innocent bystander?!?!"

"Fatal officer-involved shooting" means a cop shot one of them.

It's pretty easy to track people via helicopter, or all the damn cameras everywhere. It's really hard to hide. Especially if they were to commit a real crime with a real victim at some point in the future.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Charliemopps]

Ok, think of it this way. Lets say instead of jumping into a car, the suspects picked up a pipe bomb with a dead-mans switch. Would the police chase them? No. They'd follow slowly at a safe distance. Now, why wouldn't they chase them with the same vigor as the car chase? There's a big difference between a car chase and a pipe bomb, and it's not really obvious at first. Both chases end with a lethal release of energy... the bomb explodes, the car crashes. No suspect fleeing from a murder scene is going to stop until he crashes after all... The difference is the cars lethal force is uni-directional. The POLICE'S lives are not in danger. When the suspects come to a stop that lethal force is applied in the opposite direction of the police. So the police will not risk their own lives, but if it's the public who's in danger from their actions they're not as concerned.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[arth1]

"Victor Sanchez". There's a nice, 'American' name...

Unless your own name is in the vein of "Runs Through", "Onawa" or "Aipaloovik", you can shut up now.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[drinkypoo]

Victor Sanchez is a nice American name. Mine is another exemplary example, if I do say so myself. Anonymous Coward, however, sounds British, or possibly French.

something has to be changed

[zr]

there should be a better way of catching perps, a way that doesnt involve putting the innocent at grave risk.

perhaps we dont chase them withe swarm of squad cars but deploy a swarm of small UAVs to keep an eye on them until a more local unit can pick them up sans the dangerous chase.

there has to be a better way..

Re:He should not have been pursued

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You mean as in being held accountable for the same laws, and having everything they do recorded on camera? Wow, enlightened England is so unique and smart, I wish we would have thought of that. And surely having a violent crime rate more than four times that of the US makes them more than four times better, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Clearly the problem is that America has too many guns.