User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:13:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And he didn't even get a ticket. Just straight up killed a guy out of recklessness and moved on to the special assignment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So um... being in an at-fault accident and killing someone doesn't satisfy the elements of a crime? Is this a CA thing? In TX, those facts alone are enough to bring some sort of charges... Feel free to post the specific criminal sections. How many times have we seen posts about car drivers getting a simple traffic ticket for a collision that resulted in the death of a motorcyclist? Yup. And he didn't even get a ticket. Just straight up killed a guy out of recklessness and moved on to the special assignment. This isn't some grand conspiracy. Different lawyers/DAs interpret law differently. Here is a very similar case closer to me, with similar facts. On duty, fell asleep at wheel, killed cyclist. Convicted of misdemeanor manslaughter (no jail time) and demoted: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12727597 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:16:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh we know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works Oh we know. Would you like me to stop posting? Are my posts not of any value to the discussion? Cause people seem to be very confused on how this incident was dispo'd |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:18:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No can do, if they kill someone due to gross negligence they want the same consideration, so they need to offer it whenever they can. Quid pro quo, one hand washes the other. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. No can do, if they kill someone due to gross negligence they want the same consideration, so they need to offer it whenever they can. Quid pro quo, one hand washes the other. Again, I'll point to the numerous cases around the country where drivers get nothing more than a traffic citation in collisions that result in the death of a motorcyclist. Gross negligence can be a high hurdle - particularly if the act that most are claiming is the cause of gross negligence is specifically exempted for LE in the course of their duties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:19:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237940150/Official-document-Deputy-won-t-be-charged-in-death-of-Calabasas-bicyclist-Milton-Olin Seems to me that him legally texting and driving makes zero difference according to the statute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So um... being in an at-fault accident and killing someone doesn't satisfy the elements of a crime? Is this a CA thing? In TX, those facts alone are enough to bring some sort of charges... Nope. http://www.scribd.com/doc/237940150/Official-document-Deputy-won-t-be-charged-in-death-of-Calabasas-bicyclist-Milton-Olin To prove the crime of vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence, California Criminal Jury Instruction (CALCRIM) No. 593 requires the People to establish that:
1. Deputy Wood drove a vehicle; 2. While driving that vehicle, Deputy Wood committed an infraction or an otherwise lawful act that might cause death; and 3. Deputy Wood committed the infraction or otherwise lawful act that might cause death with ordinary negligence. Seems to me that him legally texting and driving makes zero difference according to the statute. I don't think that anything about the statute exempting police from the law restricting use of communication devices while driving immunizes failure to use due care or failure to yield the right-of-way. The fact that the deputy was distracted by something lawful doesn't mean that he didn't violate the law by the manner of operating his vehicle. It is lawful for police officers in a car to look at one another. However, if the driver gazes fixedly at his passenger and consequently runs over a pedestrian on the sidewalk, he has at the very least committed an infraction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:20:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I'll point to the numerous cases around the country where drivers get nothing more than a traffic citation in collisions that result in the death of a motorcyclist. Gross negligence can be a high hurdle - particularly if the act that most are claiming is the cause of gross negligence is specifically exempted for LE in the course of their duties. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. No can do, if they kill someone due to gross negligence they want the same consideration, so they need to offer it whenever they can. Quid pro quo, one hand washes the other. Again, I'll point to the numerous cases around the country where drivers get nothing more than a traffic citation in collisions that result in the death of a motorcyclist. Gross negligence can be a high hurdle - particularly if the act that most are claiming is the cause of gross negligence is specifically exempted for LE in the course of their duties. According to the statue only ordinary negligence is required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:20:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And he didn't even get a ticket. Just straight up killed a guy out of recklessness and moved on to the special assignment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So um... being in an at-fault accident and killing someone doesn't satisfy the elements of a crime? Is this a CA thing? In TX, those facts alone are enough to bring some sort of charges... Feel free to post the specific criminal sections. How many times have we seen posts about car drivers getting a simple traffic ticket for a collision that resulted in the death of a motorcyclist? Yup. And he didn't even get a ticket. Just straight up killed a guy out of recklessness and moved on to the special assignment. I'm not sure court services counts as "special assignment". Our local SO is looking for extra help position - basically contract employees - for it's court services positions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:21:51 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well in California, if you're sober with a clean driving record and you don't leave the scene and the PCF is a traffic infraction, you likely won't be doing jail time if you kill somebody. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
well that's some bullshit. I am not a bike on road fan at all, but if he was in a bike lane, and the car came over and hit him, he should be facing manslaughter charges. so I guess if I hit someone, and it's work related, I'll be OK right? Well in California, if you're sober with a clean driving record and you don't leave the scene and the PCF is a traffic infraction, you likely won't be doing jail time if you kill somebody. But according to GD al non-LE drivers are immediately arrested and booked into jail..................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:22:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Did I make it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:24:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I'll point to the numerous cases around the country where drivers get nothing more than a traffic citation in collisions that result in the death of a motorcyclist. Gross negligence can be a high hurdle - particularly if the act that most are claiming is the cause of gross negligence is specifically exempted for LE in the course of their duties. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. No can do, if they kill someone due to gross negligence they want the same consideration, so they need to offer it whenever they can. Quid pro quo, one hand washes the other. Again, I'll point to the numerous cases around the country where drivers get nothing more than a traffic citation in collisions that result in the death of a motorcyclist. Gross negligence can be a high hurdle - particularly if the act that most are claiming is the cause of gross negligence is specifically exempted for LE in the course of their duties. The question is not whether the specific behavior that led to the driver's distraction is exempted. The wreck was caused by the driver's inattention while operating a motor vehicle. Regardless of what led to the inattention, the driver had a duty to pay attention to his driving. The statute in question does not authorize distracted driving or careless driving. I would go so far as to say that the statute presumes that officers will exercise due care for the safety of others while operating under the exemption. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:26:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2. It's nice you believe that, and I'm not saying your belief is unreasonable, but that's not the rule of law and you can't go changing the rules of the game after the fact. It's not fair to the players. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:27:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, tell me this isn't at least funny http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2010-05-07/Front_Page/Police_want_teen_who_caused_deadly_auto_accident_t.html (Can't link while driving and on iPad) But section 192 is apparently the answer according to police. Are you a CA Leo? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cop was driving. Bike was in bike lane. Cop hit bike. Bike rider dead. What more is needed? I don't care what cop was doing in the car, it doesn't even matter. Congratulations!!!!!!! You've proven the cop was at fault and responsible for the death of Olin. You have yet to prove a crime was committed. So um... being in an at-fault accident and killing someone doesn't satisfy the elements of a crime? Is this a CA thing? In TX, those facts alone are enough to bring some sort of charges... Feel free to post the specific criminal sections. How many times have we seen posts about car drivers getting a simple traffic ticket for a collision that resulted in the death of a motorcyclist? Lol, tell me this isn't at least funny http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2010-05-07/Front_Page/Police_want_teen_who_caused_deadly_auto_accident_t.html (Can't link while driving and on iPad) But section 192 is apparently the answer according to police. Are you a CA Leo? Be interesting to know how long the girl's red light had been red - I think that's what will be the big difference between these two cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:27:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Indeed....
“Once again we see the government protecting its own despite its behavior. That is why it is so important that we have an independent civil jury that demands public entities answer to incidents of wrongdoing,” the family’s attorney Bruce Broillet said in a statement Thursday. The police are refusing the family evidence from the killing. In a discussion this week with the Los Angeles Times, Olin family attorney Bruce Broillet said that the Los Angeles Police Department has denied any access to critical forensic evidence from the patrol car and scene. That includes any access to a black box or dashcam (if that even existed at the time of the crash). Furthermore, the family has not been given access to critical forensic evidence collected from the crash scene by LAPD officers. 
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-deputy-texting-exnapster-exec-struck-killed-20140807-story.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:28:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Specifically which part/s? The part about responding to the MDT messages being a time "critical" issue? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I rad the prosecutor's statement, I felt it was weak. Specifically which part/s? The part about responding to the MDT messages being a time "critical" issue? The assumption that a legal action cannot be negligent. "He was doing X, and X is a legal action, therefore X must not be negligent." It's a logical non sequitor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:29:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the statue only ordinary negligence is required. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. No can do, if they kill someone due to gross negligence they want the same consideration, so they need to offer it whenever they can. Quid pro quo, one hand washes the other. Again, I'll point to the numerous cases around the country where drivers get nothing more than a traffic citation in collisions that result in the death of a motorcyclist. Gross negligence can be a high hurdle - particularly if the act that most are claiming is the cause of gross negligence is specifically exempted for LE in the course of their duties. According to the statue only ordinary negligence is required. I was referring to the posters here saying the action by definition was gross negligence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:30:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should read the DAs letter. You clearly havent Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The amount of veteran posters on here calling for someone to be locked in a cage based on emotion, not rule of law, is sad. Very reminiscent of militant BLM people calling for "justice" or gun grabbers calling for confiscation. I'm not sure that California law allows for killing cyclists with ones car. In fact, I'd bet a lot of money that it is in fact AGAINST the law to kill a cyclist with ones car while in California. All situations are fact dependent Really not a whole lot of good "facts" in favor of the deputy in this situation. I'd be interested in hearing some if there were. Until then it looks like the DA is letting him off citing some BS that doesn't really apply. You should read the DAs letter. You clearly havent "If you're upset about Fast and Furious just read Holder's explanation of it." I've read the position statement and find it weak at best. Just because some lawyer decided to do something doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:31:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:32:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"If you're upset about Fast and Furious just read Holder's explanation of it." I've read the position statement and find it weak at best. Just because some lawyer decided to do something doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. As a general proposition, at least one lawyer in every dispute is unimpeachably right and should be listened to very carefully. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:33:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But according to GD al non-LE drivers are immediately arrested and booked into jail..................... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
well that's some bullshit. I am not a bike on road fan at all, but if he was in a bike lane, and the car came over and hit him, he should be facing manslaughter charges. so I guess if I hit someone, and it's work related, I'll be OK right? Well in California, if you're sober with a clean driving record and you don't leave the scene and the PCF is a traffic infraction, you likely won't be doing jail time if you kill somebody. But according to GD al non-LE drivers are immediately arrested and booked into jail..................... Dude, you're like the Libertarian Yankee of 'according to GD'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:37:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed.... The police are refusing the family evidence from the killing. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/olindoc2.jpg?c2cdb1 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-deputy-texting-exnapster-exec-struck-killed-20140807-story.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed.... “Once again we see the government protecting its own despite its behavior. That is why it is so important that we have an independent civil jury that demands public entities answer to incidents of wrongdoing,” the family’s attorney Bruce Broillet said in a statement Thursday. The police are refusing the family evidence from the killing. In a discussion this week with the Los Angeles Times, Olin family attorney Bruce Broillet said that the Los Angeles Police Department has denied any access to critical forensic evidence from the patrol car and scene. That includes any access to a black box or dashcam (if that even existed at the time of the crash). Furthermore, the family has not been given access to critical forensic evidence collected from the crash scene by LAPD officers. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/olindoc2.jpg?c2cdb1 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-deputy-texting-exnapster-exec-struck-killed-20140807-story.html In your investigation have you determined that Wood's was actually driving - as in the patrol car was moving - at the time of those texts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:39:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are You sure you're the only 2 LEO's in this thread?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works
I assumed he was talking about verified LEOs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:39:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"If you're upset about Fast and Furious just read Holder's explanation of it." I've read the position statement and find it weak at best. Just because some lawyer decided to do something doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that California law allows for killing cyclists with ones car. In fact, I'd bet a lot of money that it is in fact AGAINST the law to kill a cyclist with ones car while in California. All situations are fact dependent Really not a whole lot of good "facts" in favor of the deputy in this situation. I'd be interested in hearing some if there were. Until then it looks like the DA is letting him off citing some BS that doesn't really apply. You should read the DAs letter. You clearly havent "If you're upset about Fast and Furious just read Holder's explanation of it." I've read the position statement and find it weak at best. Just because some lawyer decided to do something doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. Ain't that the truth |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:40:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are You sure you're the only 2 LEO's in this thread?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works
Where's your secret badge, bro? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:41:55 PM EDT
[#23]
Well thats bull shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:45:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where's your secret badge, bro?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works
Where's your secret badge, bro?
Maybe he didn't want people outing all of the folks with secret badges.  Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:47:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In your investigation have you determined that Wood's was actually driving - as in the patrol car was moving - at the time of those texts? Quote HistoryQuoted:
In your investigation have you determined that Wood's was actually driving - as in the patrol car was moving - at the time of those texts? Does not matter what I think. The police wanted him charged with manslaughter based on their investigation, the DA declined. Here is what the investigator had to say: "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," Det. Russell A. Townsley wrote in his request. On a side note, tell us who deleted the officers texts from his phone after the accident and could only be discovered by a supoena to Verizon? When a Los Angeles County sheriff's investigator began looking into the fatal bike accident on Mulholland Drive, one of the things he said he did was inspect the cellphone of the deputy who had slammed into the cyclist.
It showed little of interest, court documents show — no history that it had been used for a phone call or text message in the minutes before the accident. But another detective looking into the Dec. 8, 2013, accident was unconvinced and requested a search warrant for Deputy Andrew Francis Wood's cellphone records. The accident, he wrote in his request, had the telltale signs of distracted driving. When the packet of information from Verizon Wireless arrived, it showed that Wood had sent six text messages in the moments leading up to the collision, according to court records. That's destruction of evidence in a homicide which is a conscious admission of guilt to a crime IMHO. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-napster-executive-death-20140807-story.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:51:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where's your secret badge, bro? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works Where's your secret badge, bro? Not gonna go back & check every poster..... I could have a Tank, Eagle, & Pistol if I wanted to submit the paperwork, too...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:03:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whether He has a Secret Badge or not, I see another accepted LEO posting in this thread.... Not gonna go back & check every poster..... I could have a Tank, Eagle, & Pistol if I wanted to submit the paperwork, too...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Come one guys, pick a different case to defend. This guy ran some one over because he was distracted by his cellphone/MCD. You know if a family member was run over by someone not paying attention to the road, you would want the driver held accountable. Don't say you wouldn't. The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works
Where's your secret badge, bro?
Not gonna go back & check every poster..... I could have a Tank, Eagle, & Pistol if I wanted to submit the paperwork, too...... Ok? My bad? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:17:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does not matter what I think. The police wanted him charged with manslaughter based on their investigation, the DA declined. Here is what the investigator had to say: Can you please post the portion of the police investigation report that specifically asks the DA to file charges - your above quote does not say what you're claiming it says? You seem to keep ignoring the part in blue to solely focus on the cell phone. Why? That's destruction of evidence in a homicide which is a conscious admission of guilt to a crime IMHO. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-napster-executive-death-20140807-story.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In your investigation have you determined that Wood's was actually driving - as in the patrol car was moving - at the time of those texts? Does not matter what I think. The police wanted him charged with manslaughter based on their investigation, the DA declined. Here is what the investigator had to say: "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," Det. Russell A. Townsley wrote in his request. Can you please post the portion of the police investigation report that specifically asks the DA to file charges - your above quote does not say what you're claiming it says? You seem to keep ignoring the part in blue to solely focus on the cell phone. Why? Quoted:
On a side note, tell us who deleted the officers texts from his phone after the accident and could only be discovered by a supoena to Verizon? When a Los Angeles County sheriff's investigator began looking into the fatal bike accident on Mulholland Drive, one of the things he said he did was inspect the cellphone of the deputy who had slammed into the cyclist.
It showed little of interest, court documents show — no history that it had been used for a phone call or text message in the minutes before the accident. But another detective looking into the Dec. 8, 2013, accident was unconvinced and requested a search warrant for Deputy Andrew Francis Wood's cellphone records. The accident, he wrote in his request, had the telltale signs of distracted driving. When the packet of information from Verizon Wireless arrived, it showed that Wood had sent six text messages in the moments leading up to the collision, according to court records. That's destruction of evidence in a homicide which is a conscious admission of guilt to a crime IMHO. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-napster-executive-death-20140807-story.html I'm guessing Wood cleared his text history on his personal phone - when exactly we don't know. I routinely clear the text history on my personal phone. Don't you? It sounds like you support LE dept's being able to search their employees personal phones w/o PC - is that correct? I think you're grasping at straws with destruction of evidence in a homicide claim considering the data was retrieved via subpoena. Consciousness of guilt may have a leg to stand on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:18:05 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok? My bad? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The two LEOs in this thread (who happen to be on a short list of LEOs still posting in GD cop threads), are myself and Brian4wd. I don't think either of us are stating personal opinions. We're just trying to explain how this world works Not gonna go back & check every poster..... I could have a Tank, Eagle, & Pistol if I wanted to submit the paperwork, too...... Ok? My bad? One that was accepted as speaking as a LEO, by known LEO site staff in the past..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:22:57 PM EDT
[#30]
I guess it's a good thing it wasn't a Federal LEO, the Officer was talking to.... So they can't, Martha Stewart him........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:24:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Am I in before the Leo leg humpers and cop haters?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:26:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I in before the Leo leg humpers and cop haters? It's been more or less civil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:38:00 PM EDT
[#33]
I'm just floored that not only is this not negligent vehicular homicide, but if the guy STILL is an LEO after doing that?
Something fuckin stinks. Unless I missed something (as in reading 98% of this thread).  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:38:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just floored that not only is this not negligent vehicular homicide, but if the guy STILL is an LEO after doing that? Something fuckin stinks. Unless I missed something (as in reading 98% of this thread).
That about sums it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:45:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as they are doing work related communications then that one exception in the electronic device statute exempts cops from the rest of the motor vehicle laws.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Running someone over in the bike lane isn't against the law? Really.... As long as they are doing work related communications then that one exception in the electronic device statute exempts cops from the rest of the motor vehicle laws. Only ones professional enough to e-mail from a laptop in a moving car ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:14:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only ones professional enough to e-mail from a laptop in a moving car ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Running someone over in the bike lane isn't against the law? Really.... As long as they are doing work related communications then that one exception in the electronic device statute exempts cops from the rest of the motor vehicle laws. Only ones professional enough to e-mail from a laptop in a moving car ... Its okay. They teach how to multitask and only rarely run over innocent citizens. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:16:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Nobody has a comment on the case I posted at the top of the page? Does it not fit the critic's narrative?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:23:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody has a comment on the case I posted at the top of the page? Does it not fit the critic's narrative? People who pay attention already know where it leads. It's much more convenient to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:29:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People who pay attention already know where it leads. It's much more convenient to ignore it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nobody has a comment on the case I posted at the top of the page? Does it not fit the critic's narrative? People who pay attention already know where it leads. It's much more convenient to ignore it. It doesn't fit the "woe is me - some animals are more equal than others" narrative that people here like to spout............... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:31:57 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mastershield, don't leave home without it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I nail someone in my car because I was texting/emailing for work, it would be ok? Are you a CA cop? Mastershield, don't leave home without it. Oh how I miss it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:35:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody has a comment on the case I posted at the top of the page? Does it not fit the critic's narrative? I can guarantee You, as a Commercial Truck Driver, I'd have been down getting a Drug/Alcohol test done...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 9:39:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember when that whole thing unfolded & there were some questionable things done by the Responding DSO's....... I can guarantee You, as a Commercial Truck Driver, I'd have been down getting a Drug/Alcohol test done...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nobody has a comment on the case I posted at the top of the page? Does it not fit the critic's narrative? I can guarantee You, as a Commercial Truck Driver, I'd have been down getting a Drug/Alcohol test done...... The lesson to be learned is that LA cops get better protection than Santa Clara cops. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:07:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When a Los Angeles County sheriff's investigator began looking into the fatal bike accident on Mulholland Drive, one of the things he said he did was inspect the cellphone of the deputy who had slammed into the cyclist.
It showed little of interest, court documents show — no history that it had been used for a phone call or text message in the minutes before the accident. But another detective looking into the Dec. 8, 2013, accident was unconvinced and requested a search warrant for Deputy Andrew Francis Wood's cellphone records. The accident, he wrote in his request, had the telltale signs of distracted driving. When the packet of information from Verizon Wireless arrived, it showed that Wood had sent six text messages in the moments leading up to the collision, according to court records. That's pretty sketchy. If the investigator checked the phone right after the crash and found nothing, I would imagine the cop deleted the messages intentionally. Where I work, they would check my phone right away in a similar crash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:12:28 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What CoC violation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hmmmm... CoC violations and stuff What CoC violation? police are protected here. Basically you cannot say anything bad about them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:12:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
police are protected here. Basically you cannot say anything bad about them. Bullshit. Take it somewhere else son. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:15:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
police are protected here. Basically you cannot say anything bad about them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmmm... CoC violations and stuff What CoC violation? police are protected here. Basically you cannot say anything bad about them. Whole lotvof threads & posts that prove otherwise...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:16:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody has a comment on the case I posted at the top of the page? Does it not fit the critic's narrative? If you can't bother to hotlink it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:16:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the front seat of a patrol car is a very dynamic situation which most civilians would find too complex to understand let alone comprehend.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:18:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Pretty sure I posted in here at the beginning and as far as I know I still have the badge over next to the pistol.
I'm not going to hide that I'm a cop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:19:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as they are doing work related communications then that one exception in the electronic device statute exempts cops from the rest of the motor vehicle laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Running someone over in the bike lane isn't against the law? Really.... As long as they are doing work related communications then that one exception in the electronic device statute exempts cops from the rest of the motor vehicle laws. Or the rest of the State Penal Code......
|
|
|
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.
