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
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?
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
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...
.
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?
It's hardly any better on a motorcycle (or as a pedestrian). A lot of people never rode bikes or motorbikes *seriously*. They may have taken the huffy for a spin down the block as a kid, but never as an actual commuting tool. So, they don't take seriously the position distracted drivers put them in. I'd rather have someone drunk, or speeding behind me than someone using a fucking laptop, tablet, or cell phone as a cyclist of any stripe. Pedestrians get treated with disrespect and their right of ways get violated regularly too. Maybe if the police actually did pull people over and just *educate* them on these issues instead of being a force used mostly to extract money from the people we could make some progress. Or perhaps if getting and keeping a drivers license in most states wasn't one notch easier than simply turning 16. Like in Germany where a decent % don't make it every time. But alas, I think for some they think driving poorly is some kind of inalienable right.
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.
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.
I like bicycles so much I don't have a driver's license. But who on Earth would risk their life riding a bike, (for whatever sensible reason), when professional idiots kill bicyclists riding peacefully and safely?
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
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.
Maybe, from a psychological point of view, it's a return to medieval times when a knight or nobleman on horseback automatically had the right of way. If he trampled a peasant, or swept him into the ditch and broke his neck, well that was just tough - and essentially the peasant's fault for getting in the way.
When you're a cyclist or a pedestrian, do you ever get the feeling that car drivers look at you in that way?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I've known some backwoods types, but when you start confusing a deer's hindquarters and a woman's pelvis, it's time to get into town more!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You must have very small Deer in the US.
US deer are grazers so their heads tend to be low to the ground despite standing much taller. We dont have carnivorous deer that go for our hearts like you seem to have in Germany.
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?
...from Witnesses, (page 3 of the Police PDF Report):
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
Civil lawsuit will be brought. Civil lawsuit will be won. Taxpayers will pay the civil lawsuit award. Those responsible will be unaffected.
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.
Because dead men tell no tales. Which rises a question of what incentive does any officer have to ensure that the merely wounded survive? Delay calling help a little and there won't be any confusion over conflicting testimonies.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
people need to get out and start protesting and getting people on ballots to oust the cronies.
sorry, but that's the strategy which has been employed for the past two hundred years. The very best that could be said for it is that it has slowed the decline into totalitarianism. Even that is hard to prove.
I suggest a new strategy, Artoo.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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 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
I am sure you can find a couple of examples, so maybe saying it never happens is overreaching, but you will find a distinct lack of prosecution in car-cyclist deaths compared to car-pedestrian deaths that are otherwise identical.
Bottles.
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.