Deputy Who Fatally Struck Cyclist While Answering Email Will Face No Charges 463
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.
Legalized Murder (Score:2, Interesting)
How many times is the police going to get away with murder this month?
Re:yet if we did it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:yet if we did it (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.
Re:IT's not just cops getting away with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IT's not just cops getting away with this (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Okay, fine. Presumption of innocence and all. However, if they are found guilty then I want to see a clawback of the pay.
For example, Nadal Hasan, the Ft. Hood terrorist^W"workplace violence perpetrator" drew over $300,000 in salary while awaiting trial. That's swell. What makes it better is that his victims' families were being jerked around and not receiving death benefits, etc, from the government while this was transpiring.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Interesting)
quoting the report [scribd.com]:
So... he was negligent, he was negligent, he was neglegent. But in summary, he wasn't negligent. Either that or texting while driving isn't negligent. Which I'm pretty sure has gone onto the books in most states by now. If he felt he had to respond immedidately to a message with obvious indications of serious urgency (such as keywords like "bro") he should have done like the same advice he would have given anyone else while ticketing them for texting while driving, "next time, pull over and do your texting from the shoulder".
I also found this particularly insulting in the latter part of the report:
Look back at the witness accouns and see "something equally significant that we aren't going to mention again":
Of course the driver of the following car didn't see Olin, he doesn't have xray vision to look through the patrol car, his passenger is in the correct place to see around into the right bicycle lane. It look s like the person writing that report was making a number of stretches trying to justify not pressing charges?
Someone with more time on their hands needs to type up and post that report online in searchable format. I can't help but wonder if they deliberately put it up in image format to meet their legal requirements without making it easily quoteable and searchable...
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not always true. We've had several local deputies here that were disciplined, suspended or fired for not obeying the law and in one case lying to investigators. Right up the road in the city of Warner Robins, Ga the police chief and one of his lieutenants were sent to prison for thinking they were above the law and could blackmail people. Too many people concentrate on these cases where justice failed and say that nothing "ever" happens but I know from personal experience that this is not so.
Re:yet if we did it (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.