Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Input Devices

Oculus VR Co-founder Andrew Reisse Killed In Auto Collision 302

Posted by timothy
from the sad-news dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oculus VR Co-founder Andrew Reisse Killed In Auto Collision

Comments Filter:
  • FTA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rmdingler (1955220) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:37AM (#43882143)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dunkelfalke (91624) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:38AM (#43882165)

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

      • Re:FTA (Score:5, Funny)

        by kurt555gs (309278) <kurt555gs@@@ovi...com> on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:48AM (#43882199) Homepage

        Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

        • Re:FTA (Score:5, Funny)

          by Dins (2538550) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:49AM (#43882207)
          When you outlaw cars, only outlaws will have cars.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01, 2013 @09:07AM (#43882307)

            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....

            • by aitikin (909209) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @09:30AM (#43882395)

              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 (Score:4, Informative)

            by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 01, 2013 @10:19AM (#43882669) Journal

            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 (Score:5, Funny)

            by g0bshiTe (596213) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @11:08AM (#43882971)
            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.
          • by g0bshiTe (596213)
            Also not all guns are banned due to shooting incidents, so in this case only Dodge Chargers should be banned.
        • by g0bshiTe (596213)
          You obviously haven't seen the movie Christine.
      • Re:FTA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot&gmail,com> on Saturday June 01, 2013 @09:33AM (#43882413) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • by ClintJCL (264898)
          *something, i mean, not someone
        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Cars have a proper time and place. And the proper place is not in the city. Banning cars outright is not the answer, banning them from cities is the right idea though. Replacing them with functional public transportation systems (I still favor PRT, but anything that works is a win) and replacing pavement with trees solves much of what is wrong with a modern city.

    • Re:FTA (Score:5, Informative)

      by gl4ss (559668) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:39AM (#43882169) Homepage Journal

      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).

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by 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 whee

      • by rhizome (115711)

        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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by Luckyo (1726890) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @09:06AM (#43882301)

      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 [go.com]

      • Re:FTA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by candeoastrum (1262256) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @09:43AM (#43882471)

        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?

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          "White nice and fluffy" refers to kittens.

      • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jklovanc (1603149) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @11:26AM (#43883093)

          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.

          • by Microlith (54737)

            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.

            Yeah, it's not like we could have a helicopter pursue them from a distance or anything. The only thing can do is chase them at dangerously high speeds through crowded areas and risk a violent ending or let them go completely. No middle ground. So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent death

            • Re: FTA (Score:4, Informative)

              by jklovanc (1603149) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @06:10PM (#43885565)

              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.

      • by 0111 1110 (518466)

        The "criminal activity" will probably turn out to be disorderly conduct or some other charge that the cops just make up on the spot. The fact that they are being so vague about what happened is highly suspicious.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Criminal misconduct that resulted in a firearm-related fatality?

          I'm pretty sure you can't just "make up" corpses with gunshot wounds. Not can you "make up" dead people hit by the person running away from the police.

          • by geoskd (321194)

            I'm pretty sure you can't just "make up" corpses with gunshot wounds.

            I'm pretty sure you can. Making corpses with gunshot wounds requires only a non-corpse that you don't care about, and a gun. Police are regularly in the presence of great quantities of both, often together.

      • by Nyder (754090)

        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 [go.com]

        I think you forget how cops act in the United States. Even for small crimes that are NOT violent in nature, they pull out a full squad, armed to the teeth, kick down doors and terrorize whomever they are going after. Since criminals know the cops will have guns out for non violent crimes, then it only makes sense to start shooting at the cops when you see them for violent crimes? Why? Because the cops are going to be gunning for you. Cops actions for all crimes have made it so criminals really hav

    • 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 [go.com]

      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.

    • by erroneus (253617)

      Not troll.

      There are laws in the books in California about the rules of hot pursuits. If, for example, they are suspected of having done something with a gun or are otherwise already a danger to society, they can chase. If they are illegal immigrants, don't chase. That they didn't name the suspect's crime suggests that they either didn't know what they were being chased for or that it was something which did not warrant such a chase. Either way, giving chase was very likely an inappropriate response by t

      • by erroneus (253617)

        Ah, I just read... it was, in fact, chasing for reasons within the law. The cops were acting properly.

        So this is just really, really unfortunate and I hope the criminals get what's coming to them.

    • 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.
      • A fatal shooting isn't "deadly violence" enough?

        • by geoskd (321194)

          A fatal shooting isn't "deadly violence" enough?

          It depends who did the murdering, and who got murdered. If the perp murdered a cop, then yes they are well justified in chasing and catching this person, as the altercation will likely occur when and where the perp is apprehended anyway. If the police did the murdering, well then, that's a different matter altogether now isn't it.

    • 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 cynic in me says you, like the rest of us, have next to no information about what actually occurred, and are using the event as an excuse to pontificate.

      • Well... there is truth in what you say, but a lifetime of observing has given me cause to carefully examine Authority's use of force. The police can have their job. I do not want it; but law enforcement is a necessary evil, if you will. More times than people want to believe, a posse of college-age men in blue are chasing a 'bad guy' generating the collective testosterone of a rugby scrum. Apologies to the twenty-somethings, but as every older fellow knows, that is not the time of your life when the most
    • these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents

      Be careful what you wish for. The next obvious solution to the fleeing suspect problem is the manned/unmanned drone. A spidey-tracer shot onto an escape car can be auto-tracked by a quad-copter. Such technology already exists and will likely be sold as toys in the next few years (the ad reads: "Film your kid playing soccer...from overhead! Tracks her every move and lets you monitor the action in real-time on your smartphone. You can even zoom in on that winning goal as it happens!")

      The world of drones

  • Last words. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:44AM (#43882191)

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

  • Bus factor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Edulix (726376) on Saturday June 01, 2013 @08:45AM (#43882193) Homepage
    It's a strong thing to say, but this is what happens when the bus factor strikes.
  • by 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.

  • 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..

    • They'll just run like mad to get away UAV or not. If they are in flight mode they'll instinctively run like a wild animal without reason. This is why somebody surrounded will jump out of the car and run hopelessly on foot - the survival instinct is strong in those perps...

      Real Solutions:
      GPS gun. Shoot the car with a tracking device.

      Use the car's built-in blackbox GPS cell modem (high end but often those features become standard)

      Cell phone tracking - detect any pings from the phone in the car then track it.

      • even better use the cars engine "blackbox" to cut the engines and remote lock the car. heck with a decent flatbed you can have an officer (with safety harness) read them their rights on the way to impound/holding.

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

      Sarlac pits.

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.

Working...