User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:12:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here. 
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit.  A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:14:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He did lie initially. Is that legal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:16:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:16:09 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here.
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit. A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Criminally Negligent Homicide or whatever they have in CA should apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:17:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here.
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit. A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Sure. And criminal court. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:17:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here.
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit. A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. In nearly every instance a person can indeed waive negligence. But nothing of higher culpability (e.g., gross negligence, recklessness or intentional behavior). The most notable exception would be certain professional relationships, such as attorney-client and doctor-patient, in which there can be no effective waiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:20:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Posts such as yours are the newest version of "Hands up! Don't shoot!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what, we aren't allowed to say when a LEO has done wrong around here now? What a joke.
Posts such as yours are the newest version of "Hands up! Don't shoot!" ***Snort*** |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:23:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Where did he say he was okay with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:25:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:35:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the purpose of the law ? To make running people over illegal, or to make using devices while driving illegal? One is not equal to the other. The law of prohibiting using devices is a law to discourage using devices to try to prevent other crimes of negligence related to that activity. The purpose of being exempted from the devices law, is to allow LE to continue to perform critical job related duties while driving. That's all. All I will say on this is that when I did a ride-along last year, the cop (a guy I really like) was on his phone, talking and texting with his wife, planning their son't birthday party. We were in a rural area, winding roads. Even if it is legal for them to use them, it was actually very uncomfortable to be in the truck as one wheel or the other would hit the dirt on the shoulder. If I was doing that, I'd be cited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:36:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Did I say I was OK with it? Or did I explain what the law is? Does explaining the law imply agreeing with the actions being discussed? You must hate defense attorneys with the heat of 1000x suns
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:36:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Criminally Negligent Homicide or whatever they have in CA should apply. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here.
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit. A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Criminally Negligent Homicide or whatever they have in CA should apply. Apparently the LA District Attorney disagrees with you |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:37:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because that's what he said, right? Are you that desperate to start drama? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:38:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Wow. So you're ok with a cop negligently killing someone and then lying about it? What the fuck. Not what he's saying at all. He's pointing out it's not a crime to lie itself (maybe some piddly dick Obstruction-ish charge, but no accompanyingly severe felony level offense) to state or local investigators: only the Feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:39:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In nearly every instance a person can indeed waive negligence. But nothing of higher culpability (e.g., gross negligence, recklessness or intentional behavior). The most notable exception would be certain professional relationships, such as attorney-client and doctor-patient, in which there can be no effective waiver. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here.
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit. A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. In nearly every instance a person can indeed waive negligence. But nothing of higher culpability (e.g., gross negligence, recklessness or intentional behavior). The most notable exception would be certain professional relationships, such as attorney-client and doctor-patient, in which there can be no effective waiver. You're right. Bad mistatement on my part |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:41:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). What? Ever heard of "hindering/obstructing an investigation" isn't making false statements to law enforcement during an investigation a crime? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:42:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe there is something wrong, in two days we have had a no charges , the owner of a house shot and what looks like a guy with his jands up need more info on this one though. Two days? This article was published last year and discussed ad nauseam in GD at that time. Why someone decided to rehash old news... well, I'll let you guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:43:43 PM EDT
[#18]
This is why exemptions in the law for government workers is a bad idea. If people can't be trusted to text while driving, then it probably is a bad idea to allow cops to read email while driving, even if it is work related.
Either that or we should allow regular people to take the same "reading email and texts while driving" course the police take and let them get certified and licensed to do so. Not the full-on POST training, mind you. Just the part where the police learn how to drive and text at the same time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:45:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? Ever heard of "hindering/obstructing an investigation" isn't making false statements to law enforcement during an investigation a crime? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Widow should rightfully prevail with her civil case, but under our current rule of law there was no criminal act committed. Anybody who thinks the LA District Attorney would give some beat cop special treatment doesn't know how this works He did lie initially. Is that legal? It is not a crime to lie to an investigator, unless you lie about your identity (or the investigator is a Fed). What? Ever heard of "hindering/obstructing an investigation" isn't making false statements to law enforcement during an investigation a crime? Like I said, piddly dick charge usually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:49:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Sure. And criminal court.
Well, that seems to be the disagreement. The misdemeanor manslaughter charge has a history of no jail time, so essentially equal to a citation. The actions had to be illegal, for it to be more. Since his actions are permitted, then the more serious charge would not apply. I also wonder why it has taken so long for the investigation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:49:25 PM EDT
[#21]
I must say it is good to see this discussion reopened for civil discourse.
Cheerio |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:50:35 PM EDT
[#22]
He should be fired and charged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:53:00 PM EDT
[#23]
It may not be a crime because......wait for it......wait for it......police were exempted from the law unlike the normal regular citizen. Shocker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:54:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is why exemptions in the law for government workers is a bad idea. If people can't be trusted to text while driving, then it probably is a bad idea to allow cops to read email while driving, even if it is work related. Either that or we should allow regular people to take the same "reading email and texts while driving" course the police take and let them get certified and licensed to do so. Not the full-on POST training, mind you. Just the part where the police learn how to drive and text at the same time. Thank your nanny staters that have created and promoted this law. They did a GREAT job of infecting Utah, where you aren't even allowed to touch your phone while driving. While your argument sounds OK, we have been driving with computers in our cars since the 1970s. Cops being trained, from day one, how to multitask. The biggest issue is that technology has finally become an overload of information and we can find ourselves doing more than we should. I won't send emails, unless stopped. I won't look at any internet information, unless stopped. The messages send and items ran are fairly easy and really don't require much attention. I don't need to read everything. I only need to look for a couple of words, which we have made the program change the color of these words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:56:06 PM EDT
[#25]
He may not be criminally charged, but the civil suit is going against him. There's likely to be an out of court settlement. No way the county can escape it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:57:18 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Posts such as yours are the newest version of "Hands up! Don't shoot!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what, we aren't allowed to say when a LEO has done wrong around here now? What a joke.
Posts such as yours are the newest version of "Hands up! Don't shoot!" The two don't even compare, but whatever makes you feel better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:57:35 PM EDT
[#27]
DA Finds cops lied in a homicide yet no criminal charges and they get to keep their job. Nice......
Records show Deputy Wood and the LA Sheriff’s Sergeant who responded to the scene both lied in police reports in an attempt to hide the officer’s negligence. Neither police officer has been charged or disciplined. In a statement taken at the scene, Wood claimed that Olin had veered into his lane. The DA reported that the opposite was true. Carrying out a separate investigation of the incident, LA County Sheriff’s Detective Russell Townsley wrote, ‘It appears that Deputy Wood may have been distracted by using his cellular telephone or viewing and/or using the Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) in his radio car at the time of the collision.” That conflicts with the responding Sergeant’s report swearing that Wood hadn’t used his personal cell phone at all. Sheriff’s Department policy prohibits the use of cellphones in a county-owned vehicle “absent extenuating circumstances.” But subpoenaed Verizon phone records showed that Wood had sent more than 100 text messages since about 6:15 a.m. that morning — including six texts in the five minutes before the crash, which occurred at 1:05 p.m., according to the Sheriff’s Department.
The last of the series of six texts was sent at 1:04 p.m., the records show. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-not-charged-killing-095951755.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:58:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank your nanny staters that have created and promoted this law. They did a GREAT job of infecting Utah, where you aren't even allowed to touch your phone while driving. While your argument sounds OK, we have been driving with computers in our cars since the 1970s. Cops being trained, from day one, how to multitask. The biggest issue is that technology has finally become an overload of information and we can find ourselves doing more than we should. I won't send emails, unless stopped. I won't look at any internet information, unless stopped. The messages send and items ran are fairly easy and really don't require much attention. I don't need to read everything. I only need to look for a couple of words, which we have made the program change the color of these words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is why exemptions in the law for government workers is a bad idea. If people can't be trusted to text while driving, then it probably is a bad idea to allow cops to read email while driving, even if it is work related. Either that or we should allow regular people to take the same "reading email and texts while driving" course the police take and let them get certified and licensed to do so. Not the full-on POST training, mind you. Just the part where the police learn how to drive and text at the same time. Thank your nanny staters that have created and promoted this law. They did a GREAT job of infecting Utah, where you aren't even allowed to touch your phone while driving. While your argument sounds OK, we have been driving with computers in our cars since the 1970s. Cops being trained, from day one, how to multitask. The biggest issue is that technology has finally become an overload of information and we can find ourselves doing more than we should. I won't send emails, unless stopped. I won't look at any internet information, unless stopped. The messages send and items ran are fairly easy and really don't require much attention. I don't need to read everything. I only need to look for a couple of words, which we have made the program change the color of these words. I'm sorry but that is a weak argument. Police or any other government entity, should not be exempted from the laws they enforce, create, judge, etc. I learned how to multitask in the Army, does that mean I get a special waiver too? To include being able to carry a gun to protect myself in this socialist state? Off duty police can |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:00:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DA Finds cops lied in a homicide yet no criminal charges and they get to keep their job. Nice...... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-not-charged-killing-095951755.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
DA Finds cops lied in a homicide yet no criminal charges and they get to keep their job. Nice...... Records show Deputy Wood and the LA Sheriff’s Sergeant who responded to the scene both lied in police reports in an attempt to hide the officer’s negligence. Neither police officer has been charged or disciplined. In a statement taken at the scene, Wood claimed that Olin had veered into his lane. The DA reported that the opposite was true. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-not-charged-killing-095951755.html I would be shocked, but they seem to be able to get away with a lot in LA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:02:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law functioned as designed? Are you actually serious? The law was not put in place to cover cops that recklessly and negligantly kill innocent people. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not normally a cop basher, but if I did that exact same thing, I'd be typing this from jail. Hope the family gets a decent settlement. You'd be in jail because state law doesn't specifically exempt you from certain laws prohibiting using a computer when you drive. In this case, the law functioned exactly as designed. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The law functioned as designed? Are you actually serious? The law was not put in place to cover cops that recklessly and negligantly kill innocent people. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This.
See my other post above. It's called Due Regard for Safety, and he sure as shit threw that out the window fucking off with email while driving, cop or not. Nobody in the world can type on a laptop or smartphone and maintain 100% SA and control of a moving vehicle on a public road with all the variables involved. People were crashing cars long before phones or computers were major distractions, this is just making it worse. It's more dangerous on the roads today than it's ever been. I sold my motorcycle recently after nearly being hit several times just a mile or so from my house by idiots who text and drive. It's too dangerous to ride, a hobby I've enjoyed for many years, thanks to all the ignorant fucksticks on the road today who chance killing people to post on Facebook/Twitter/text/email/etc. Fucktardedness. What if it had been an ambulance or fire truck that hit this guy? I bet it would have looked something like this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:02:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never had a client whose first thought was "Oh man, I'm going to lose my job." It's always more like "Oh shit, I might have to serve a bid for this." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. a criminal charge is minor and the least of the officers problems. I've never had a client whose first thought was "Oh man, I'm going to lose my job." It's always more like "Oh shit, I might have to serve a bid for this." The point is many of these type incidents, as tragic as they are, don't result in criminal charges, so yes, my first few concerns if I screwed up like the cop did would be towards my job and the ass raping I'm going to take in Civil court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:07:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank your nanny staters that have created and promoted this law. They did a GREAT job of infecting Utah, where you aren't even allowed to touch your phone while driving. While your argument sounds OK, we have been driving with computers in our cars since the 1970s. Cops being trained, from day one, how to multitask. The biggest issue is that technology has finally become an overload of information and we can find ourselves doing more than we should. I won't send emails, unless stopped. I won't look at any internet information, unless stopped. The messages send and items ran are fairly easy and really don't require much attention. I don't need to read everything. I only need to look for a couple of words, which we have made the program change the color of these words. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is why exemptions in the law for government workers is a bad idea. If people can't be trusted to text while driving, then it probably is a bad idea to allow cops to read email while driving, even if it is work related. Either that or we should allow regular people to take the same "reading email and texts while driving" course the police take and let them get certified and licensed to do so. Not the full-on POST training, mind you. Just the part where the police learn how to drive and text at the same time. Thank your nanny staters that have created and promoted this law. They did a GREAT job of infecting Utah, where you aren't even allowed to touch your phone while driving. While your argument sounds OK, we have been driving with computers in our cars since the 1970s. Cops being trained, from day one, how to multitask. The biggest issue is that technology has finally become an overload of information and we can find ourselves doing more than we should. I won't send emails, unless stopped. I won't look at any internet information, unless stopped. The messages send and items ran are fairly easy and really don't require much attention. I don't need to read everything. I only need to look for a couple of words, which we have made the program change the color of these words. Yeah it is crap here with the no texting law. I get why they do it. Innocent people have died because someone was texting instead of looking where they were going. But at the same time if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea for everyone. I can't remember the last time some law was passed "for safety's sake" that didn't include a built-in exemption for government employees while working, as if that somehow makes whatever the banned activity is "worth the risk" to ensure government is unimpeded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:07:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank your nanny staters that have created and promoted this law. They did a GREAT job of infecting Utah, where you aren't even allowed to touch your phone while driving. While your argument sounds OK, we have been driving with computers in our cars since the 1970s. Cops being trained, from day one, how to multitask. The biggest issue is that technology has finally become an overload of information and we can find ourselves doing more than we should. I won't send emails, unless stopped. I won't look at any internet information, unless stopped. The messages send and items ran are fairly easy and really don't require much attention. I don't need to read everything. I only need to look for a couple of words, which we have made the program change the color of these words. I'm sorry but you can't train someone to drive safely while looking at a computer screen down by the console. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:12:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, that seems to be the disagreement. The misdemeanor manslaughter charge has a history of no jail time, so essentially equal to a citation. The actions had to be illegal, for it to be more. Since his actions are permitted, then the more serious charge would not apply. I also wonder why it has taken so long for the investigation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:Sure. And criminal court.
Well, that seems to be the disagreement. The misdemeanor manslaughter charge has a history of no jail time, so essentially equal to a citation. The actions had to be illegal, for it to be more. Since his actions are permitted, then the more serious charge would not apply. I also wonder why it has taken so long for the investigation. That makes no sense. Can people not be charged with vehicular manslaughter if they are putting on makeup, eating a cheeseburger, receiving oral sex, painting a watercolor masterpiece, or any other act simply because its not specifiaclly made illegal in the statutes? Or would they be charged because their legal activity led to them operating the vehicle in a reckless and negligant manner? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:13:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've read the thread. I'm still trying to figure out what the COC violation was.... ... anyone? I'm beginning to think that they need to add "Pissing off either Site Staff, or a Moderator." to the CoC. Maybe that would clarify it. (Sort of like a "Disturbing the Peace" or "Interfering" charge, it means whatever the fuck they want it to mean.) I'm getting too wound up about this, so it's time for me to shut up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:18:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the whole point of a negligence charge, is it not? Not that your action was inherent unlawful, but rather your performance of said duty was not keeping within a reasonable standard of due diligence. Fair question. Personally I think you'd have a difficult time getting a conviction in this case. That said the civil suit is an entirely different animal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:20:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the Emergency Services world, we call it " Operating with Due Regard to Safety", meaning you can do what you need to do in an emergency situation, but if you fuck up or push your vehicle beyond its limits and injure/kill someone, you're on your own legally. I don't know how this is applied to LE though, Us Fire/Rescue guys would be totally fucked if we did this. My departments policy is immediate termination on the spot if you are caught playing with any type of communication device(except the unit radio in emergency situations, you don't have to look at the radio to use it, just key it up and give your size up) while driving, period. How many Fire vehicles are operated solo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:21:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or did I explain what the law is? 
Explain == defend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:22:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because it is a bullshit excuse. Look at the LAPD and other state agency regulations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As previously stated in this thread and in the linked article in CA LE can use electronic devices in course of duties - yes LE is exempted from no text/hands free. Not sure you can convict someone for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter when the act that is the proximate cause is specifically deemed legal in this circumstance. That's because it is a bullshit excuse. Look at the LAPD and other state agency regulations. The Los Angeles Police Department .. have two officers in a car and officers are trained that “the passenger should be using the phone or (mobile digital computer),” said Cmdr. Andrew Smith, an LAPD spokesman. The California Highway Patrol, which allows cellphone use only in “exigent circumstances,” directs field units to use their in-car computers for nonemergency incidents or inquiries only. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department goes further by banning texting while driving and restricts other cellphone use to urgent matters. Your point? Dept policy can be tighter than state law - that was pointed out by others already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:24:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what I'd like to say, but nowadays I don't know what I'm allowed to say here.
Membership renewal is coming up...might have to ponder it for a bit. A bunch of you are posting petty bullcrap. right back at ya'.
There is NOTHING wrong with criticizing this incident and the officer in question. He screwed up. So get over your "WOE IS ME - I MIGHT GET BANNED FOR SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER, WAH WAH WAH" nonsense. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council that came up with the law that makes it OK for cops to drive distracted. No law excuses the negligence. There's a reason you can't usually waiver negligence. Sounds like an issue to be resolved in civil court Hardly. He was quite possibly driving a motor vehicle with wanton disregard and quite probably lied about it. Now, I can see the intent of such a law as allowing a passenger to use an onboard radio/computer, or a officer to use one in a limited manner, but idea that the legislature, even in California, wanted to overturn three to five centuries of criminal liability for negligence common law is probably a little over the top. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:26:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many Fire vehicles are operated solo? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the Emergency Services world, we call it " Operating with Due Regard to Safety", meaning you can do what you need to do in an emergency situation, but if you fuck up or push your vehicle beyond its limits and injure/kill someone, you're on your own legally. I don't know how this is applied to LE though, Us Fire/Rescue guys would be totally fucked if we did this. My departments policy is immediate termination on the spot if you are caught playing with any type of communication device(except the unit radio in emergency situations, you don't have to look at the radio to use it, just key it up and give your size up) while driving, period. How many Fire vehicles are operated solo? Chief vehicles and medics enroute to the hospital (effectively). Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:26:57 PM EDT
[#42]
So a question, with today's technology, why cant they use a speech to text application for computer interaction? i know it doesn't solve the eyes off the road problem but seems a lot more safe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:28:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair question. Personally I think you'd have a difficult time getting a conviction in this case. That said the civil suit is an entirely different animal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's the whole point of a negligence charge, is it not? Not that your action was inherent unlawful, but rather your performance of said duty was not keeping within a reasonable standard of due diligence. Fair question. Personally I think you'd have a difficult time getting a conviction in this case. That said the civil suit is an entirely different animal. I think the lying on the official report angle is as bad. What arrest can this officer make for the rest of his career that doesn't start with the defense attorney bringing up his rather public record of misstatement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:30:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair question. Personally I think you'd have a difficult time getting a conviction in this case. That said the civil suit is an entirely different animal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's the whole point of a negligence charge, is it not? Not that your action was inherent unlawful, but rather your performance of said duty was not keeping within a reasonable standard of due diligence. Fair question. Personally I think you'd have a difficult time getting a conviction in this case. That said the civil suit is an entirely different animal. Why? Haven't they already determined that it was job related? I wouldn't hold my breath for the officer to be bankrupt after this. The taxpayers on the other hand are about to learn a lesson on the perils of legally running bicycleists over.  Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:31:12 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a question, with today's technology, why cant they use a speech to text application for computer interaction? i know it doesn't solve the eyes off the road problem but seems a lot more safe. Our MDCs can do text to speech for the email portion of the system. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:32:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be fair, I see a lot of people who are just not sure what is or is not ok anymore. Since the rules appear to be in flux at the mod/staff level that seems reasonable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet i see a system message saying that the thread contained coc violations. Not even the mods are on the same page about this vague, and unwritten rule Was the thread not unlocked? Are you going to nickel and dime everything? Good friggin' grief.
To be fair, I see a lot of people who are just not sure what is or is not ok anymore. Since the rules appear to be in flux at the mod/staff level that seems reasonable. It would be one thing if all those people were legitimately asking for guidance instead of jumping on the band wagon of stupidity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:34:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To be fair, I see a lot of people who are just not sure what is or is not ok anymore. Since the rules appear to be in flux at the mod/staff level that seems reasonable. There have been no changes. If and when something is changed, it will be announced with much fanfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:34:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I may, what posts were the cause of the temporary lock? I ask because it was reopened and I didn't see any edits. No idea. You could IM Toiyabe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:35:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No idea. You could IM Toiyabe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I may, what posts were the cause of the temporary lock? I ask because it was reopened and I didn't see any edits. No idea. You could IM Toiyabe. Pretty sure it was bad sarcasm detection about Locke's post. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:38:24 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No idea. You could IM Toiyabe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I may, what posts were the cause of the temporary lock? I ask because it was reopened and I didn't see any edits. No idea. You could IM Toiyabe. Wilco. I'll drop this. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
