Slashdot Mirror
Deputy Who Fatally Struck Cyclist While Answering Email Will Face No Charges
Frosty P writes The LA County District Attorney's Office declined to press charges against a sheriff's deputy who was apparently distracted by his mobile digital computer when he fatally struck cyclist and former Napster COO Milton Olin Jr. in Calabasas last December. The deputy was responding to routine work email when he drifted into the bike lane and struck and killed Mr. Olin. An official with the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said it is launching its own probe into the deputy’s behavior.
if me or you did this, we would be locked up on vehicular manslaughter
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
People have gotten life in prison for this exactly.
He was on his mobile digital computer at the time, it's hardly his fault.
How many times is the police going to get away with murder this month?
State Trooper in MA shot a woman in the head and faced no charges or disicpline.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/01/hunter-in-norton-shoots-woman-he-mistook-for-deer/
Disgusting!
Wood, a 16-year department veteran, was returning from a fire call at Calabasas High School at the time of the collision.
“Wood entered the bicycle lane as a result of inattention caused by typing into his (Mobile Digital Computer),” according to the declination letter prepared by the Justice System Integrity Division of the District Attorney’s Office and released Wednesday. “He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed. Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.”
The law does not prohibit officers from using an electronic wireless communications device in the performance of their duties, according to the letter. Furthermore, prosecutors said it was “reasonable” that Wood would have felt that an immediate response was necessary so that a Calabasas deputy wouldn’t unnecessarily respond to the high school.
To establish the crime of vehicular manslaughter, prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wood was criminally negligent. While GPS records show the deputy was driving three miles per hour over the speed limit prior to the collision, investigators could not determine his speed at the time of impact. And while Wood was texting shortly before the collision, there was no evidence he was texting or doing anything else that would have distracted him at the time of the collision, according to the letter.
In fact, evidence indicates Wood’s personal cellphone was only in use while his patrol car was not in motion, the letter stated.
“Wood briefly took his eyes away from the road precisely when the narrow roadway curved slightly to the left without prior warning, causing him to inadvertently travel straight into the bike lane, immediately striking Olin,” the letter from the DA’s Office stated.
Eric Bruins, planning and policy director for the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, said he was disappointed to see a clearly distracted law enforcement officer escape charges on what he called a technicality.
“Just because the law allows someone to do something while driving doesn’t mean they are allowed to do something unsafely while driving,” Bruins said. “Hitting someone from behind is very clear evidence that whatever was going on in that car was not safe and should have been considered negligent.”
Olin’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit in July against the county, the Sheriff’s Department and the deputy, alleging driver negligence and seeking to obtain more information about the incident.
In a civil case the standard of proof is only “by a preponderance of the evidence” rather than the much higher standard of proving negligence beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors said.
According to the Sheriff’s Department’s own policies and procedures involving the operation of a vehicle, “members shall always employ defensive driving techniques to avoid or prevent a collision” and shall not operate vehicles “in an unsafe or negligent manner.”
I mean, doesn't the person whose rights were infringed on have to make that call? And since that person is apparently now dead, how can they just somehow arbitrarily decide that charges should be dropped?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> in the head
The story says pelvis, which matches the proper height for a heart shot at a deer.
From the article -> “He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed. Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.” So by this same logic - if was typing on his computer and rammed his car into a McDonalds and killed 10 people, this would have been lawful too??? If I'm not mistaken, if you do a separate act lawfully, if you do a second act like reckless driving as a result of the first - you're still liable for the second act. If you drink a coffee lawfully and spill it on yourself and then jump lanes and hit a semi and kill 4 people - you don't think you'd get hit with vehicular manslaughter?? And what your argument would be I was drinking coffee lawfully so lets throw this case out of court? Geez....
Multiple times in cities I have lived in, drivers have struck and either killed or maimed cyclists, and typically they suffer no more than some points on their license. I can't think of a case where a charge such as involuntary manslaughter was brought.
The deputy did put a knife in Olin's hand, so it was self-defense.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
It's sad, it's ridiculously two-faced, but the sad truth is in the USA people in cars / trucks kill cyclists quite often -- and seldom are charged. Even rarer is for an alleged "motorist" to get jail time for it.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
From the article -> “He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed. Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.”
So by this same logic - if he was typing on his computer and rammed his car into a McDonalds and killed 10 people, this would have been lawful too???
If I'm not mistaken, if you do a first act lawfully, and you do a second act like reckless driving as a result of the first - you're still liable for the second act. If you drink a coffee lawfully and spill it on yourself and then jump lanes and hit a bicyclist - you don't think you'd get hit with vehicular manslaughter?? And your argument would be, "I was drinking coffee lawfully, so lets throw this case out of court?"
Geez...
While *driving* ? WTF?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
.
And the precedent is that distracted driving laws are not valid and can be ignored.
or is the real precedent that police are above the law, and can do whatever they want with impunity?
comments like yours do not help solve the real issues. yes this man made a mistake, but mistakes do have consequences. vehicular manslaughter fits the crime, not first degree murder, and sure as hell not kill the man bring him back and kill him again
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Once again (still) cops are above the law.
They demand respect, yet show none. Departments overlook and hide massive crimes committed by their officers.
This is just typical cop behavior.
And the precedent is that distracted driving laws are not valid and can be ignored.
I don't see how that's true, for three reasons. First, the featured article states that the vehicle was stopped while the phone was in use. Second, a DA's decision not to prosecute isn't exactly a "precedent" in the common law sense. Third, even if the officer had been found not guilty in a court of law, another judge could apply the narrower precedent that police are above the distracted driving law but not necessarily above other laws.
we can see both at the local and federal level that District Attorney and Attorney General should not be members of the formal executive branch but rather should be members of the judiciary or possibly some other branch of government. By putting them in the same administrative house as the police it means that the police or other government officials are shielded from prosecution. This creates a two tier legal system at the very least where there is one set of rules for everyone out of government and apparently almost no rules at all for those that are in it besides be loyal and obey your masters.
This needs to be dealt with.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You should not get preferential treatment in the eyes of the law based on your place of employment. It really is that simple.
It appears that operating the mobile computer while driving is "routine procedure" for this police department. That's clearly a dangerous policy, so the department is liable and if they don't pay up the family should file a wrongful death suit.
This particular officer probably didn't break any criminal law. You could argue "reckless driving", but reckless has a very specific meaning in law. The fact that the driver's vehicle continued in a straight line as the bike lane curved suggests that he wasn't any less careful than many people are on a regular basis. "Reckless" requires a wanton disregard, a level of carelessness well beyond what a reasonable person would do.
Therefore I think it may be correct that the police department that established the dangerous policy is held responsible. I don't see any serious crime commited by this particular officer, based on the facts available.
More realistically... why was this police officer alone in the car, yet expected to respond to messages? Either he should be accompanied by another officer (best solution), or equipped with entirely hands-free equipment so he would never have to take his eyes off the road.
Of course the real abuse in this case is that the prosecuting authorities have discretion as to whether to indict. It is disgraceful that an official should decide that there should be no prosecution, and that's it. But that is the current system; it needs to be changed.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
While a death did not occur in this case in SW VA, a deputy shot his own daughter who was sneaking back home in through the garage at 3:30AM,
Deputy hear's noises in garage at 3:30AM .. check .. check .. check .. check .. WTF?!??!?!
Deputy draws gun
Deputy has no idea who was in garage
Deputy blindly shoots said person
Deputy not charged with anything
Loudoun deputy won’t face charges in accidental shooting of teen daughter
I want to know HTF this was classed as "Accidental". Talk about different rules for different people.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
They all go "we can't put our own officers in jail, then noone will want to be a police officer since they dont trust their employers".
Which is the opposite of the truth, if they started actually punishing their own officers, when they broke the law they are sworn to uphold. Well the rest would have to stop their corrupting ways, and normal people might want to start becoming cops again...
No one is above the law. Except cops, I guess.
that the bicycle swerved into his lane causing the accident:
http://bikinginla.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JSID_wood.pdf
If they will not prosecute maybe the feds will. Either way this guy can't walk. Prosecute or roll back the law.
Cyclists came first and were the impetus for modern roads
I think that would be the horse (or ox) and wagon. Not many bicycles in ancient Rome.
The advent of the automobile was heralded as a major environmental improvement in many cities as it eliminated the problems of horse shit and dead horse carcasss.
Have gnu, will travel.
Until you rise the fuck up.
Yea, did wonders for the people in Ferguson.
well to be fair, many people would have done the exact same thing. If i am the head of my home, and from my understanding, everyone in said home is asleep, and i hear someone "breaking in the garage" Im probably gonna shoot the person too.
I feel bad for the family but the daughter should have known better having a father who is a cop, breaking into the home might not be the best idea.
long story short, its apples and oranges, not parallel case
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
after all, the cops do it, even after they kill somebody. so LOL everybody
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
long story short, its apples and oranges, not parallel case
Except that in VA you are only allowed to shoot if you life is threatened, and not for the sake of protecting property. In no way did his daughter threaten his life.
So it is a parallel case. The deputy did something that was against the law, for which if anyone else had done it they would have been in jail faster than a speeding bullet.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Civil lawsuit will be brought. Civil lawsuit will be won. Taxpayers will pay the civil lawsuit award. Those responsible will be unaffected.
As you said, this is clearly a double standard. I believe your use of "sued" is incorrect, because there was no stop of a civil trial just criminal. It's not an easy thing to change when corruption is this deep in the legal system, but people need to get out and start protesting and getting people on ballots to oust the cronies.
I wish I could say this was just a training issue, but clearly this goes well beyond a training issue. The DA just let all cops know that if they drive distracted "too bad" even if it costs a completely innocent person their life.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As I just pointed out above, in VA you can only shoot in order to defend your life, and not your property. In no way did his daughter threaten his life. Hence the Deputy broke the law, yet remains unpunished (aside from all the therapy his daughter will need)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Therefore I think it may be correct that the police department that established the dangerous policy is held responsible.
This.
Sadly, the courts have eliminated all expectations of judgement in the performance of police duties. So we should expect officers to comply with the letter of department procedures rather than applying common sense. And if an error occurs, it is the result of flawed policy rather than an individual's responsibility.
Have gnu, will travel.
If the deceased victim had not been a well-known entertainment lawyer, the family may have hired a tort lawyer and received a million or two from the government in "go away" money.
But killing a wealthy entertainment lawyer? Oh! This is going to be a big trial attracting a lot of local coverage. Best of all, there may be celebrity witnesses, the lawyer's clients who explain how the loss of their beloved counsel has caused them pain. There may be tears and running mascara. The replies from the actors will be some of the best emotionally powerful lines that Hollywood script writers can provide.
The jury will be made up of people who support the no-texting law, and the deputy will be painted as someone who got off because the D.A. didn't want to piss off his buddy the Sheriff.
The story will be a TV movie of the week or an episode in one of the many "taken from a true story" shows.
Whether the Sheriff punishes the deputy is immaterial, there's a great story to be told, and the deputy just killed a man who was important to the storytellers.
If you're an L./S. County taxpayer, grab your hanky and your checkbook.
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
The siren and lights should be on whenever the computer is on.
I can easily see why someone would feel threatened about someone else breaking into their house at 3:30 AM. To make it worse, if there was any reason to believe that the intruder could know that the homeowner was a cop (and therefore armed), it would be quite reasonable to assume that the intruder was prepared (and therefore armed) or that his entire motive was to kill.
What you seem to be arguing for is "I guess they were threatening me (even though no evidence to the fact was known at the time) so I am free to shoot them."
Consider how that stance plays into the *multiple* occasions where by innocent people have been blown away just for the sake of knocking on the wrong door.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Check this cops bank account.. Did RIAA happen to make a 'healthy' deposit to his "defense fund"?
Not saying all cops are bad of course, but reading non-emergency content while driving down the road is irresponsible and he should be held responsible.. Taking out ex-Napster management due to an accident, smells fishy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
if someone is breaking into my home, at 3:30 AM, while me andmy family are asleep, then my life is in danger as far as i am concerned and no one will convince me shooting someone in my home uninvited at 3:30 AM is wrong
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
no the point is no one has a right to break into my home period, but especially when im asleep at 3:30 AM, anyone who does so is threatening my life by the sheer fact of them being in my home uninvited while i sleep. As such I feel I am well within my rights to end said intruder and i wont give it a second thought. My call to the cops would go like this
Hello, Id like to report a home invasion. You got a dead body you need to come out here and clean up.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
same LA where the cops got off in the Rodney King case.
And they're wondering why people don't trust or respect the police.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Actually...
The deputy "chose" to text with his wife via his personal cell phone while driving.
The deputy "chose" to converse with a fellow deputy using the department's internal instant messaging system to read "U C4 BRO" (You Free, Bro?) and respond "YES I" at the time that he was exceeding the posted speed limit on a road with poor visibility and a curve ahead.
The deputy "chose" to tell the investigating officer that Mr. Olin intentionally swerved into his patrol vehicle and that he was in fact operating his vehicle safely.
The deputy "chose" to tell the investigating officer that he was not using his MDC at the time of the accident.
The deputy "chose" to tell the investigating officer that he was not utilizing his personal cell phone to converse with his wife at the time of the incident.
These things all came out afterwards through analysis of the vehicle's GPS, his phone records, and the MDC itself, and said data corroborated witness statements.
Here is a copy of the Police Report.
Thirty four characters live here.
I mean we had a statie here in Mass literally shoot someone while hunting and didn't get charged. (Long story short he didn't identify what he was shooting at, thought a lady's dog was a deer and ended up hitting her. Last I checked any responsible hunter would not only know what he's shooting at, which this guy didn't do, but he'd also know what part of the animal he was shooting so it would die quickly without needless suffering. This guy took a half blind shot into some bushes because he thought he saw a tail.) The guy is still a statie and yes, still has a gun.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I have to disagree with you here.
If I were a police officer, and members of the community *knew* that I were a police officer, and I were forced through my job to arrest, detain, cite, and otherwise ruin people's days as a police officer, and someone broke into my home in the middle of the night at a time when there is the expectation that I would be home, there is the expectation that the person doing the breaking and entering would be there to do me or my family harm rather than to steal stuff.
Even if I weren't a police officer and someone were to break into my home in the middle of the night, through my garage where they would have no option but to know that I was home and *still* proceed to enter my home regardless, I would expect that they would be there to do me harm rather than steal stuff.
If it was the middle of the day, or a back door, or a window, or any other location for that matter than the garage where you'd have irrefutable proof that people are home, I might agree with you. As is, I just can't find a way to agree with you.
What happened was tragic; it shouldn't have happened, but at the same point it is understandable how it would have taken place and more importantly understandable how said action was believed to be an appropriate course of action given what little is known of that particular situation.
Thirty four characters live here.
Maybe if there is a distracted driving law that you're violating when you do it. Otherwise, probably not. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11... http://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle... http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013...
The problem is more then just a bad department policy. It's the very concept that police should be immune to certain laws in the first place that needs to change.
What's ridiculous here is that charges will not be pressed *because* the officer did not violate Vehicle Code section 23123.5 (which prohibits operating electronic wireless communication devices while driving) since it "does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle".
Apparently they totally failed to check whether the dude might have violated the law that says you should not kill people by driving over them with your car, which he obviously did violate.
Apparently killing people with your car is illegal UNLESS you're doing it while operating an electronic communications device in a police car; in that case you actually get a reward: the job you applied for over a year ago. How odd...
0x or or snor perron?!
The stated rationale for not charging him was cop-specific; but he'd have gotten off just for being in a car.
Therefore I think it may be correct that the police department that established the dangerous policy is held responsible. I don't see any serious crime commited by this particular officer, based on the facts available.
May I suggest a bit more than the police department's procedures be changed? Like U.S. laws?
German traffic law (StVO) says about special rules (my translation)
35 Special rights .... , State Police, ...., as far as urgently necessary to fulfill their tasks.
.....
(1) Excempt from these regulations are the following: Army, Federal Police, Emergancy Services,
(8) These special rights may only be used if public safety and order are sufficiently respected.
As the completly innocent dead byciclist shows the officer did not sufficiently respect public safety, so according to German law he would not get off.
Conclusion: Change your laws!
This is not at all what I am arguing. I am arguing that circumstances change based on potential intent of the intruder and the time that it occurs. If they were breaking in when no one appeared to be home, then it would be completely different than breaking in during the middle of the night when an entire family is expected to be home and asleep.
What you do not apparently understand is that people literally target police houses knowing that weapons tend to be in them as well as to kill cops. Having lived with multiple State Troopers in Virginia for a few years, I do realize this aspect of their lives, and mine by extension. While I think the LAPD cop should lose his badge and spend time in prison for criminal negligence (even considering that it was technically in the line of duty), the Loudoun County shooting is not similar and it was absolutely legal. I do not for a second believe that a normal citizen would be convicted of a crime in an identical situation, and only a prosecutor that meant to villainize guns would attempt to prosecute such a case.
You are arguing something else now. Firstly, that's not really an ordinary scenario as you imply. Secondly, this intruder was not knocking and they were already in a part of the house that they should not have been in while attempting to access another part from the garage.
So when it comes to getting special treatment from the justice system, cops trump rich dudes...not what I expected.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Nothing new here. In NYC criminal prosecution doesn't occur unless the driver broke two laws while hitting the pedestrian or cyclist.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so-few-fatal-bike-crashes-lead-to-arrest-in-nyc/
A couple of quotes from that article, statements by one of the prosecutors in the Bronx about why these cases don't get prosecuted:
and
> so unless there's one that allows the police to text or email while operating a motor vehicle, then he's guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
The no-texting law in that state does in fact explicitly allow police to use their issued communication equipment.
Whether it SHOULD allow police to communicate while driving is a different question. Perhaps two cops should be in each car, with the passenger operating the radio. Existing law allows the driver to do so.
The deputy should be arrested and charged with homicide (not murder--"homicide"=killing someone, charge could be manslaughter or whatever). Case should be investigated and brought to trial and allow a jury to decide. Should not be left to the DA--which is simply the cops in a different building--to decide the case in advance.
The problem is, this death was a result of systemic problems between the police and society at large, specifically the police thinking - correctly, it appears - that they're above the law.
The lack of prosecution in this case is NOT because the police are "above the law". The lack of prosecution in this case is because the law specifically allows the police to use electronic devices in the course of their duties while operating their vehicles. The same way the law allows the police to exceed the speed limit in certain cases, or allows them to park pretty much anywhere, or allows them to pull you over, or allows them to do any number of other things that a normal citizen can't do.
You may argue that it's a bad practice, but keep in mind that one person dying because officers are allowed to use electronic devices while driving doesn't necessarily mean that's bad practice any more than officers sometimes causing accidents because they can speed or run red lights in the course of their duties means those are overall bad practices either. We'd need to know how many people are hurt as a result of officers operating electronic devices while driving and compare that to how many people would be hurt if officers had to use the radio or pull over every time they needed to use electronic devices.
Regardless, there was no legal basis for criminal charges in this incident.
paintball
We don't imprison everyone who is involved in a fatal car accident. We accept that there are inherent risks in using roadways, and those risks include errors by other users of said roadways.
paintball
You've shown negligence, not malice. To me this is clearly negligent homocide. I see no evidence of murder (intentional homocide) much less malice aforethought. This doesn't mean they aren't there, but you haven't even started to make that case.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
When a person chooses to use a cell phone or other device while driving there is clearly a reckless disregard for the life of others and it is criminal. The right wing may have ruined any hope of the family using the civil courts. In some states there is a concept that only financial dependence justifies a right to sue for damages. In other words if it was a student who requires support rather than a parent supporting a wife and child then no suit may be allowed. Conservatives have actually created a right to murder without penalty in some states.
This particular officer probably didn't break any criminal law. You could argue "reckless driving", but reckless has a very specific meaning in law. The fact that the driver's vehicle continued in a straight line as the bike lane curved suggests that he wasn't any less careful than many people are on a regular basis. "Reckless" requires a wanton disregard, a level of carelessness well beyond what a reasonable person would do.
Nothing suggests he was reckless, but I'd say there's a pretty good case for criminal negligence which can also lead to a manslaughter charge. Unlike recklessness, negligence is a passive failure like not yielding, halting for a red light or in this case, failing to keep your car in your lane. They're duties you take on when you get a driver's license and operate a motor vehicle, just like a doctor can be sued for malpractice for missing obvious clues about what's wrong with you. You can't just run people over and say "Whoops sorry, it was an accident" and get away with it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So, how about something positive?
How do we get these pricks? There has to be be some generic law or statute we can use to at least get these sacks of shit out of office, if not in jail. I refuse to be so pessimistic as to believe that their own laws are so water-tight as to protect them fully, while damning us all. I'm tired of waiting for publicity on specific cases to attract a federal civil rights investigation. Nor do I want to ruin my family's lives by going Christopher Dorner on them (though they seem to deserve it). So, what do we do?
Law Enforcement is allowed to easedrop on anyone for no reason, Law Enforcement is allowed to take any possession, and finally, Law Enforcement can take my life. What have I left to lose?
Racism is over! Wooo! Yeeah!
We only um... replaced it with a police state.
What's that? We can have both? ..urk.
That would matter if he shot someone in the back while fleeing with a TV, car, etc., or perhaps rigged-up a gun to his door to automatically fire (man-trap) or something. But when someone is breaking into your home, in proximity to you and your family, you have every right to assume they are armed and dangerous, and can shoot at-will. You are under no obligation to turn on the lights and visually confirm they are armed, or wait until they try to rush you, putting your life at serious risk, to confirm beyond a doubt that they are a danger.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
From the article:
“As an officer, we are trained to multi-task and are exempt from certain laws in certain situations such as using a cellphone,” he said.
Not only are they trained to "multitask," they are also apparently above the law.
If a regular citizen were to accidentally kill someone in the course of they regular work duties, would that be OK? Because that seems to be what the Los Angeles DA's office is arguing.
As if it weren't enough of a police state already
Hello, Id like to report a home invasion. You got a dead body you need to come out here and clean up.
You seem remarkably calm for someone who's just shot their daughter.
this part of the article (or all of it)
“Wood entered the bicycle lane as a result of inattention caused by typing into his (Mobile Digital Computer),” according to the declination letter prepared by the Justice System Integrity Division of the District Attorney’s Office and released Wednesday. “He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed. Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.”
He wasn't texting or anything, he was working but still doesn't make it anymore right.
So, did Peter Capaldi get a demotion?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
except A - i have no daughter, so no worry about that happening to me, and B - dont break into my home at 3:30 AM if you dont want to get shot, I dont understand what is so hard to grasp here. if you break into my home, expect to get shot, its not that hard
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you read the DA's report I think you have to agree with the decision not to prosecute. This is supported by the witness statement by the driver following the deputy that he did not see the bicycle rider before the crash. I think this is a slam dunk civil case though. The only wildcard in the civil case will be how much responsibility will the jury assign to Milton Olin for his choice not to show high visibility colors.
While I think police agencies get to much leeway when criminal charges are possible that is not the case here. Would a ordinary citizen be prosecuted my guess is yes for several reasons.
1.) Ordinary citizens don't have the legal privilege of using electronic devices.
2.) Citizens probably would not have a GPS logger in their vehicle.
3.) Communications logs probably would not be available to support the citizens statement.
Perhaps paying attention to this video would help bring perspective in the entire debate... Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald "How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think the one-person patrol is for budget reasons. Officers are expensive, and cars have gotten relatively cheaper.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Except the question comes down to intent to kill.
While Deputy Wood obviously *intended* to utilize his computer, he could not have through that action have *intend* to specifically ram his vehicle at high speed into Mr. Olin, a man he would not have seen at the time when he took his eyes off the road.
That's where your particular argument breaks down. There is no disputing that the Deputy was stupid, and that he should have known better, and that there are countless examples in the media and in his own training to tell him that this was an extraordinarily bad thing to do. Let's give a different scenario that I sat in on one time... Names changed and all that...
Let's say that the Deputy instead discharging is firearm. Rather than wasting the time to climb the fence, he was being stupid and fired it at a padlock as he's no doubt seen done in countless movies. The bullet ricochets and hits Mr. Olin puncturing his carotid artery, leaving him to die before help can arrive. The Deputy did not see Mr. Olin, and there was not an intent for Mr. Olin to die, but regardless Mr. Olin is dead through an action conducted solely by the Deputy. Did the deputy commit an act of negligent homicide, or was there malice involved due to his stupidity and the fact that he "should have known better"?
Thirty four characters live here.
Even if it's your daughter? How is life as a sociopath?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.