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.
yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yet if we did it (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.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:4, Funny)
> sued
*prosecuted, even.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
why do I hear Snagglepuss' voice when I read your post.
heavens to murgatroid! Exit stage left...
Re:yet if we did it (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).
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
With it working rather differently if the family sucessfully defend themselves against the "burglars".
Re:yet if we did it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:yet if we did it (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.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
How many riots over rich black dudes have there been?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Geek films cop - goes to jail
Cop kills geek - goes home
Yay! We did it, mom! (Score:3)
Racism is over! Wooo! Yeeah!
We only um... replaced it with a police state.
What's that? We can have both? ..urk.
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.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Funny; in my first hand experience, and in the experience of many other people with whom I have spoken, the vast majority of people who make such sweeping and bigoted generalizations about the police are scum-sucking narcissists who prefer harassing decent police officers over treating them like fellow human beings. That's my experience as a middle class white guy, and most people say the abuse is even worse if one is a middle class white cop.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and also at Cliven Bundy's ranch.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because rich white dudes, or their families, can afford to purchase justice.
Re:yet if we did it (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.
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.
No, it wasn't. (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.
Re:No, it wasn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
So the law makes the cops above the law. Sorry bud, legal-formalist arguments don't change the functional reality: the cops are not held to the same standards of conduct they brutally enforce on the people.
Re:No, it wasn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Ummm bullshit. Typically Police are actually not exempt from laws like speed limits. However since a police officer is unlikely to ticket himself or another cop it just doesn't come up. I've never actually seen a law that exempted law officers from being at fault in accidents caused by their breaking traffic laws, in fact I have seen exactly the opposite when I studied to be an officer myself. Even if the laws for electronics usage explicitly permits police officers to use them it does not exempt them from
Re:No, it wasn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a law that permits them to use electronic devices just means that using the electronic device isn't automatically a crime. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean that they are excused from all consequences of doing so.
If you want a car analogy (no reason I can't use a car analogy to make a car analogy), a driver's license gives you permission to drive a car, so that you can't be arrested just for unlicensed driving, but you still can be arrested if you run over someone with the car. Likewise, the police have a "use electronic device license", so the use by a policeman is not a crime all by itself, but the negligent use of one still can be.
Re: (Score:3)
This is going to be an interesting trial, too. For the first time, a deep-pockets plaintiff, rather than just another little guy easily crushed by the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yet if we did it (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!
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Ridiculous. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly it was an accident.
Police officers must get special training to be able to work computers, talk on cell phones, do all kinds of things while driving.
Otherwise, it makes no sense that they are exempted from the laws that say drivers can't use these devices while driving.
Re: The Double Standard keeps growing (Score:3)
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.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. In today's society, you can get more prison time for recording a movie than for killing someone through criminal negligence.
Re:yet if we did it (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.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yet if we did it (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
So innocent cops under investigation can't spend the salary they're making since they have to save it for the off-change they'll be found guilty?
You're thinking about the wrong problem. The problem isn't cops being place on paid leave while under investigation, it's cops under investigation never being punished regardless of the severity of their actions.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
When the brave officer did this, he was just doing his VERY DANGEROUS JOB.
Re:yet if we did it (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard his family got a bill for the damage to the police car..
Re: (Score:3)
Or bleeding on the officer.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Informative)
Or bleeding on the officer.
You jest, but... From: Sept 2009 in Ferguson, Mo: Ferguson Police Beat Up Wrong Suspect Then Charged Him For Getting Blood On Uniforms In 2009 [talkingpointsmemo.com]
...police officers allegedly slammed his head against the wall, hit him and kicking him in the head, .... Davis was eventually taken to the emergency room.
He was charged with property damage, ... with the charging documents stating that Davis "did transfer blood to the uniform."
The local prosecutor later dropped the property damage charges, ... because of conflicting reports from the officers involved.
Re:yet if we did it (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
Re:yet if we did it (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.
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:yet if we did it (Score:5, Informative)
if this was SOP, than it shouldnt be any longer, and as such the training was bad if it allows cops to break the law in such a way and new training should be in place that says "stop driving to respond to an email, if you need to radio it in" cops have radios for a reason, use them
I understand that the findings show that in this case he was following procedure, but said procedure caused the loss of life, whoever signed off on said procedure should also be held accountable.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the parent was referring to the law as it applies to the police. What the rest of us would call rationalizing violations of the law.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
But Deputy Wood knowingly misled his colleagues about other details including that he applied the brakes and swerved to avoid Mr. Olin and that Mr. Olin corrected his path to make contact with the Deputy's Patrol Vehicle anyways, that he was being attentive and did everything right. Deputy Wood only acknowledged them a week later when confronted with irrefutable evidence that he did not apply his breaks, swerve, and was in fact using his MDC and Cell Phone moments before the incident did his story changed from this elaborate and complex narrative to "I don't recall".
He made a conscious choice to send 9 text messages back and forth with his wife while driving 4 miles per hour over the posted speed limit on a windy road with reduced visibility, IM with his "Bud" on his Department issued, vehicle installed computer, and in the process not even notice the human being that died through his inattention. If he had, he would have been able to swerve or apply his brakes prior to impact rather than after the fact, as the findings had shown.
The concern is that Deputy Wood killed someone and as "the People can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wood's momentary distraction in the performance of his duties constituted a failure to use reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm", he will receive no punishment, including a reprimand from his place of employment. That is ultimately the problem, where making his lunch plans with 'Unit 224T2' is now classified as the performance of his duties! (I speak from personal experience from working with a Sheriff's Office, and at 1:00pm if someone is asking if you're Code 4, they're asking if you're able to go Code 7.)
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatively, we could decide that the blame resides partially - probably mostly - on the police department and current social climate as a whole. After all, the latter has all but declared police to be above law or even the very concept of accountability, while the former certainly took advantage of it. People planted into a poisonous cultural atmosphere cannot help but internalize and treat it as a baseline for what's "normal", and can individually only decide whether they're better or worse than that. And assigning all the blame on that individual lets the system that spawned them off the hook, thus ensuring the same thing will happen again, and again, and again.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody else would get away with breaking the law because they were following orders. You try telling that story in court when you run somebody over because your boss wants every email replied to within five minutes and they'll put you behind bars in an instant. If you want to make this sting upwards in the system, do that. But don't pretend he shouldn't be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LEOs are in a completely different boat when it comes to them being susceptible to certain laws
What the fuck are you talking about?
Is distracted driving illegal? Yes.
Is it illegal if you're a LEO? Yes.
Is vehicular homicide illegal? Yes.
Is it illegal if you're a LEO? Yes.
Are the laws different if you're a LEO? No.
Will you be *prosecuted* differently if you're a LEO? Yes.
Re:yet if we did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, actually. He is exempted from the law that makes typing while driving negligenmce per se.
All that particular law means is that if anyone other than a cop is typing while driving, no further discussion is required, it *IS* negligent.
Absent that law, the cop is still required to drive with due care. We cannot take his typing while driving as necessarily being negligent but we CAN take swerving into the bike lane and running someone over as evidence of negligence.
Just because there's no specific law against popping corn while driving doesn't mean you wouldn't get charged with negligence if you did it (somehow).
Re: (Score:2)
if me or you did this, we would be locked up on vehicular manslaughter
I had said that in the story submission, but the "editors" took it out.
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...
makes sense (Score:2, Funny)
He was on his mobile digital computer at the time, it's hardly his fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did parent got modded down?
You did not find the 'sarcasm' mod option?
he is rather insightful, if not funny!
Legalized Murder (Score:2, Interesting)
How many times is the police going to get away with murder this month?
Re:Legalized Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you rise the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm starting to feel that way more and more.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Until you rise the fuck up.
Bloody freeloader.
Re: (Score:2)
Until you rise the fuck up.
Says the AC...
How do you "decide not to press charges"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
To Be Fair (Score:5, Funny)
The deputy did put a knife in Olin's hand, so it was self-defense.
IT's not just cops getting away with this (Score:2)
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.
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?
He acted lawfully??? (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...
Now we have a precedent... (Score:3)
.
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?
But not a binding precedent (Score:2)
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.
Cops are above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Conflict of interest... (Score:3)
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.
This is just straight unjust (Score:2)
You should not get preferential treatment in the eyes of the law based on your place of employment. It really is that simple.
Sue police department, this is routine procedure (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil lawsuit will be brought. Civil lawsuit will be won. Taxpayers will pay the civil lawsuit award. Those responsible will be unaffected.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Parallel "Nothing Wrong" case in VA (Score:2)
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 [loudountimes.com]
I want to know HTF this was classed as "Accidental". Talk about different rules for
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Arrest/charge him (Score:3)
Tyranny Achived? (Score:3)
pelvis (Score:2)
> in the head
The story says pelvis, which matches the proper height for a heart shot at a deer.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's also what the story says:
"State Police said in a statement that Bergeron, an experienced hunter who lives in the area, did not see the victim, and mistook the tails of her two dogs as the tail of a deer."
So this "experienced hunter" can't tell the difference between the ass end of TWO dogs and a deer??
If he's telling the truth, he shouldn't be allowed to hunt unaccompanied AND when it's not well-lit.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have very small Deer in the US.
The smallest Deer in Germany is a 'Reh', which has its head easily on the level of a human heart or higher.
Re: pelvis (Score:2)
Re:pelvis (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From the linked article... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Enough of your "facts"! I want to be unambiguously outraged!
Re:The deputy initially claimed... (Score:5, Informative)
...from Witnesses, (page 3 of the Police PDF Report):