Deputy Who Fatally Struck Cyclist While Answering Email Will Face No Charges

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Deputy Who Fatally Struck Cyclist While Answering Email Will Face No Charges

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 1, 2014 @03:10AM from the off-the-hook dept.

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.

23 of 463 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

yet if we did it by ganjadude · 2014-09-01 03:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
1. Re:yet if we did it by Neil+Boekend · 2014-09-01 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To be locked up over this is right. Whoever decide that this idiot could walk away from it without being sued should be fired. From a cannon. Into the sun.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
2. Re:yet if we did it by FSWKU · 2014-09-01 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The funny (messed up funny, not amusing funny) thing is one of the suggested links I see at the top of the page: "33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater"
  
  That's right. In today's society, you can get more prison time for recording a movie than for killing someone through criminal negligence.
  
  --
  "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
3. Re:yet if we did it by Rigel47 · 2014-09-01 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, duh. Let's state the obvious. Police are not governed by the same laws that apply to you and me. *Technically* they are but time and again we see cops getting paid leave as their sole form of punishment for egregious crimes. Does anyone really think the cop that strangled to death the guy in Brooklyn who was pleading the whole time "I can't breath" is going to see a day in prison? Puh-lease.
  
  The only way to reign in the renegade and abusive behaviour of American police is to apply the law to them exactly the same way it is applied to citizens. That psychopath in Ferguson who pointed an automatic at people while shouting "I'm going to fucking kill you"? He should be up on charges for that, not allowed to quietly resign with pension.
  
  Anyways, that's enough day-dreaming.
4. Re:yet if we did it by kencurry · 2014-09-01 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, if you or I did this, we are violating the LAW.
  
  When the brave officer did this, he was just doing his VERY DANGEROUS JOB. /sarcasm
  
  --
  sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
5. Re:yet if we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 03:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  if me or you did this, we would be locked up on vehicular manslaughter
  That's not the point though, this isn't a case of "this deputy just hit a person and killed them".
  Facts:
  1. The deputy was operating an electronic device in a moving vehicle.
  2. This was within standard operating procedure for the deputy.
  3. While doing a prescribed activity, the deputy drifted and killed an individual.
  Therefore, if the deputy was not instructed or given the opportunity to answer his email in a moving vehicle this would never have happened. In this instance, you'll probably find that the deputies are overworked and are forced to juggle paperwork while moving between scenes. The only logical conclusion to be reached is that in the normal course of his duty a deputy broke a law. Generally, when it comes to law enforcement there are rules that allow them to do this and in this specific instance it is most probable there is some insidious political reason that the DA declined to press charges.
  LEOs are in a completely different boat when it comes to them being susceptible to certain laws and in this case I feel the law was not applied unjustly. The family will have a right of recourse against the state through the civil system and the procedure for answering emails has probably changed.
  Do not apply your emotions to the law, that is not how it works.
6. Re:yet if we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That is not enough. He killed a man. It was his fault the man is dead and there is no ambiguity about that. Being in a position of authority means he should be held to a *higher* standard, not get a free pass on manslaughter.
  Throw him in a cage and replace him with someone competent!
7. Re:yet if we did it by Fuzion · 2014-09-01 03:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sorry. Not being native and neither a lawyer my grasp of these things is limited. What's the difference? (honestly, I want to know in order to prevent misusing them in the future)
  Being sued is in a civil lawsuit, usually for some monetary amount (for example by the family of the cyclist), whereas being prosecuted is for a criminal case, with potential prison time (by the district attorney).
  
  --
  "Knowledge makes us accountable." - Che Guevara
8. Re:yet if we did it by reboot246 · 2014-09-01 03:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Paid leave is what really irritates me.
  
  Paid leave = paid vacation = reward.
  
  Why reward somebody who is under investigation? Would your boss pay your salary if you were being investigated?
9. Re:yet if we did it by Frosty+Piss · 2014-09-01 03:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  well to be fair, im sure a civil case is going to happen. Its just sick. I wonder if there will be any riots over this one
  
  Nah. It was wrong, but people generally don't riot over the death of a rich dude.
  Rich white dude.
  Anyway it is slightly different that shooting some guy with his hands up, or shooting some guy running away - a pretty standard cop thing. The guy is just as dead, and the point is that the cop was negligent yet being held to different - much lower - standard that a citizen. One expects cops to be held to higher standards, but we find that it just isn't so.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
10. Re:yet if we did it by Tx · 2014-09-01 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Look, the dead guy should just consider himself lucky he's not being tried post-mortem for getting in the way of an officer.
  
  --
  Oh no... it's the future.
11. Re:yet if we did it by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-09-01 03:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "This was within standard operating procedure for the deputy."
  So what you are saying is there are at least two people who should go to jail for manslaughter. The person or people who said to do this, and the officer who was negligent enough to follow the procedure.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
12. Re:yet if we did it by Richard_at_work · 2014-09-01 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why reward somebody who is under investigation?
  Precisely because they are under investigation - to not pay them means the investigators and the employers have taken a particular stance, and also it would be extremely easy to harm someone by making a false accusation against them. Any accusation that leads to an investigation means the target is out of pocket, regardless of the end result.
13. Re:yet if we did it by crakbone · 2014-09-01 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  distracted driving is against the law. As well as hitting someone with your car. Just because he did it while reading an official email should not exclude him from the other laws. Ultimately he is the only one who can determine if the environment is safe for him to operate that computer and drive. He failed. It cost a life. He needs to pay a price for that.
14. Re:yet if we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 03:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I see that your post contains part of the script to Boondock Saints. It is a copyright violation, would you please remove your post.
15. Re:yet if we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 04:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Funny you say that because the officer initially claim that the bicycle swerved into his path causing the accident:
  http://bikinginla.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JSID_wood.pdf
16. Re:yet if we did it by ultranova · 2014-09-01 04:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  we're generally more willing to believe a tragedy was accidental and not the result of systemic problems between the police and a particular community when it was accidental and not the result of systemic problems between the police and a particular community.
  
  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.
  This also goes to show why you should not tolerate such problems even when you are currently not affected: eventually they'll grow to the point where even you aren't safe.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
17. Re:yet if we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 05:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's another part that bugs me (or, a lot of us): not only does this being "official police business" apparently protect the officer from prosecution in an incident that (apparently / allegedly) left a bicyclist dead through no fault of his own and what normal people would consider fault and unacceptable behavior on the part of the officer, but the officer won't face a felony charge for lying to officials about the incident.
18. Re:yet if we did it by jmcvetta · 2014-09-01 08:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I too am not a big fan of the police, but that's a hateful slander of the majority police who work hard and are good people.
  Nah dude, that's just a bigmedia bullshit line. In my first-hand experience, and in the experience of many other people with whom I've spoken, the vast majority of police are scum sucking bullies who prefer harassing decent citizens over confronting real criminals. That's my experience as a middle class white guy, and most people say the police abuse is even worse if one is poor and/or brown.
Re:Legalized Murder by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Until you rise the fuck up.
To Be Fair by hduff · 2014-09-01 03:26 · Score: 5, Funny

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
He acted lawfully??? by BrianSoCal · 2014-09-01 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...
No, it wasn't. by raehl · 2014-09-01 08:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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