User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:12:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:14:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh, yeah...not always. Look Z, I get what you're trying the do and I'm sure the mods appreciate the solidarity and not being fed to the wolves over every slight, but everyone freely getting their thoughts on this past couple weeks is a good thing... Besides, I already printed 10,000 "I survived the Arf Civil War" tshirts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm just honestly disappointed by the sheer number of people who are acting stupid with the "Can I say this or will I be banned?" comments. Nothing has changed, and no one has lost - or will lose - an account for criticizing a cop that breaks the law. Yes: People have been banned for posting "Oh well" and other inexcusable crap when an officer dies, but this is clearly not what this is about. Goatboy clearly stated that he is simply wants more COURTEOUS discourse, and many of you guys have responded by flipping him off and doing everything you can to undermine the site. Personally, I'm pretty disappointed - especially by some of you guys who have been around for longer and absolutely *know* that people don't arbitrarily get banned, even when they go out of their way to confront staff. Uh, yeah...not always. Look Z, I get what you're trying the do and I'm sure the mods appreciate the solidarity and not being fed to the wolves over every slight, but everyone freely getting their thoughts on this past couple weeks is a good thing... Besides, I already printed 10,000 "I survived the Arf Civil War" tshirts. I want one! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:15:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I do not think that word means what you think it means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:18:10 PM EDT
[#4]
"What difference does it make"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:21:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Uh......I thought we were done with arfcops trolling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:23:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:23:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think this was murder? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like your crusade is against the politicians and lawyers, not the cops Crusade? Lol. So if a cop commits murder and the DA decides not to prosecute him, I should only be upset at the DA not the cop? Interesting. You think this was murder? 1. This case is "murder" in the Ted Kennedy sense ie negligent homicide. 2. I was speaking to what seems to be your larger point, that we shouldn't hold the officer who commits the crime responsible but the DA who refuses to prosecute him for it. I believe in holding both accountable for their respective actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:24:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not think that word means what you think it means. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Oh really? Please enlighten me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:24:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's pretty nice here today Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, my opinion is that Balog is getting hung up on and having his thinking colored on it based on the wrong assumption that the involved parties committed widespread perjury The perjury is secondary to the negligence. Perhaps you should run for DA next election No thanks, I'd rather avoid that shithole of a state. It's pretty nice here today When I left 29 Palms I vowed never to return unless I had to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:24:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And those laws have elements that must be met (read PC) in order to make an arrest. Then it has to be proven BRD in order to get a conviction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The texting law is fairly new. Could people not be held negligent if they killed someone texting before it was specifically made illegal? Sounds at the very least "reckless driving" and possibly "manslaughter", no? Do we need laws to spell out every. single. bad. thing.? Because then we just end up with too many fucking laws. Have you bothered to look at how many laws we already have. We have that many because, Yes, every single little thing needs to be spelled out in painstaking detail because that is how the law works. If it is not written it is not something that the law can touch. Poking a badger with a fork may be wrong but unless the law is written in such a way as to describe and prohibit forking a badger, it is not illegal. Nation of laws not men/honor/morality/etc Better to kill all the lawyers and institute trial by combat or citizen's revolutionary council courts. We have laws regarding negligent homicide. And those laws have elements that must be met (read PC) in order to make an arrest. Then it has to be proven BRD in order to get a conviction. I rad the prosecutor's statement, I felt it was weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:26:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh......I thought we were done with arfcops trolling? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Uh......I thought we were done with arfcops trolling? Please explain how that is trolling. Responsible /=/ criminal |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:26:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the entire state of Washington is Utopia? Right.................. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, my opinion is that Balog is getting hung up on and having his thinking colored on it based on the wrong assumption that the involved parties committed widespread perjury The perjury is secondary to the negligence. Perhaps you should run for DA next election No thanks, I'd rather avoid that shithole of a state. Because the entire state of Washington is Utopia? Right.................. Since Utopia literally means "nowhere" then that is obviously not the case. To answer what I assume your actual point is, no it's not perfect. But I still hate CA. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:27:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:28:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I left 29 Palms I vowed never to return unless I had to. OK - can't say as I blame you in that case 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:29:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Running someone over in the bike lane isn't against the law? Really.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The amount of people who think that being exempted from one law means its legal to run people over when hey are driving distracted is sad. If that's the actual end state of the law then the LE exception needs to be removed next legislative session. If you're referring to me I haven't given any personal opinion on that law. Myself and most of the posts I've seen are just explaining what the law is. Don't confuse explaining with agreeing. I know. This exemption just shouldn't exist because one simply can't safely we a computer and drive at the same time. This case proves it and the family will not see the negligent party held accountable for his actions because of a bizarre transitive property of the statute. You may be right. But the Deputy didn't break that law, and I'd like to think you're not in favor of ex post facto prosecution. Accountability will be had in civil court, I'd wager. Running someone over in the bike lane isn't against the law? Really.... Apparently not in this case |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:31:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:32:20 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:32:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. This case is "murder" in the Ted Kennedy sense ie negligent homicide. 2. I was speaking to what seems to be your larger point, that we shouldn't hold the officer who commits the crime responsible but the DA who refuses to prosecute him for it. I believe in holding both accountable for their respective actions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like your crusade is against the politicians and lawyers, not the cops Crusade? Lol. So if a cop commits murder and the DA decides not to prosecute him, I should only be upset at the DA not the cop? Interesting. You think this was murder? 1. This case is "murder" in the Ted Kennedy sense ie negligent homicide. 2. I was speaking to what seems to be your larger point, that we shouldn't hold the officer who commits the crime responsible but the DA who refuses to prosecute him for it. I believe in holding both accountable for their respective actions. 1. Ridiculous comparison 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:33:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh really? Please enlighten me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh really? Please enlighten me. 1 a :liable to be called on to answer
b (1) :liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) :being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c :liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties Well he's not liable criminally and since it has already been determined to be job related I'm not holding my breath that QI will be stripped. So in the end the taxpayers will be the only ones held responsible for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:34:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:34:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Absolutley true. The deputy could have been filed on by the D.A., fired by his agency, sued by the victim's family, and even filed on by the Federal Govt. for denial of civil rights. Yup, some animals are more equal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: some animals are more equal than others Absolutley true. The deputy could have been filed on by the D.A., fired by his agency, sued by the victim's family, and even filed on by the Federal Govt. for denial of civil rights. Yup, some animals are more equal. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:35:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK - can't say as I blame you in that case
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I left 29 Palms I vowed never to return unless I had to. OK - can't say as I blame you in that case
Yah, that's a hellhole. My corner of the state doesn't look like that |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:35:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:36:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well he's not liable criminally and since it has already been determined to be job related I'm not holding my breath that QI will be stripped. So in the end the taxpayers will be the only ones held responsible for this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh really? Please enlighten me. 1 a :liable to be called on to answer
b (1) :liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) :being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c :liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties Well he's not liable criminally and since it has already been determined to be job related I'm not holding my breath that QI will be stripped. So in the end the taxpayers will be the only ones held responsible for this. So basically you're bitching about the entire system. Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:36:39 PM EDT
[#25]
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? I hope the civil case brings these critical messages to light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:37:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yah, that's a hellhole. My corner of the state doesn't look like that Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I left 29 Palms I vowed never to return unless I had to. OK - can't say as I blame you in that case
Yah, that's a hellhole. My corner of the state doesn't look like that I bitch when it get's above 90F here................ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:37:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well he's not liable criminally and since it has already been determined to be job related I'm not holding my breath that QI will be stripped. So in the end the taxpayers will be the only ones held responsible for this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh really? Please enlighten me. 1 a :liable to be called on to answer
b (1) :liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) :being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c :liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties Well he's not liable criminally and since it has already been determined to be job related I'm not holding my breath that QI will be stripped. So in the end the taxpayers will be the only ones held responsible for this. Yep! Looks like we've discussed this thoroughly and found the common ground. Good job guys, I'm proud of us as a group. Onto the next thread! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:37:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All situations are fact dependent Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:38:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope the civil case brings these critical messages to light. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? I hope the civil case brings these critical messages to light. If you're referring to thier content, it's in the DA's letter |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:38:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So basically you're bitching about the entire system. Got it. Feel free to correct me. In what way will the officer likely be held responsible for his actions in this case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:39:01 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope the civil case brings these critical messages to light. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? I hope the civil case brings these critical messages to light. Not sure it will really matter exactly what the messages said - the DA already laid it out that they were about the need for additional deputies to respond to the high school for the fire call. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:41:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Feel free to correct me. In what way will the officer likely be held responsible for his actions in this case? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So basically you're bitching about the entire system. Got it. Feel free to correct me. In what way will the officer likely be held responsible for his actions in this case? I don't know - I'm not privy to LASD disciplinary issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:42:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:43:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Originally Post From the linked article: [span style='font-style: italic;']Wood had also been texting his wife from his personal phone minutes before the crash, but those texts were not thought to have contributed to Wood's inattention while driving, the DA's office said Was the car moving while the deputy was texting? Was the deputy texting on his personal phone when he hit the cyclist or was he typing on the MDT? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Originally Post From the linked article: [span style='font-style: italic;']Wood had also been texting his wife from his personal phone minutes before the crash, but those texts were not thought to have contributed to Wood's inattention while driving, the DA's office said Was the car moving while the deputy was texting? Was the deputy texting on his personal phone when he hit the cyclist or was he typing on the MDT? Glad you brought that up because it goes back to the honesty of the officer who killed the biker. 1) When they looked at the killer's phone nothing was there. It was not until the investigators subpoenaed his Verizon records did they see all the texts. He deleted them or some one did at the scene. A sheriff’s sergeant responding to the crash examined Wood’s cellphone and the device showed no record of use during the time of the collision, the detective’s affidavit stated.
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. 2) The investigators said that he was distracted either by texting or using the MCD. But Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Detective Russell A. Townsley said in court documents that it appeared Wood may have been distracted by his cellphone or squad car computer. Deputy Who Fatally Struck Ex-Napster Exec Was Texting: Report <quote>Deputy Andrew Wood sent six text messages from his personal cellphone about the time authorities said the crash happened on Dec. 8, 2013 just after 1 p.m., the Daily News said, citing subpoenaed cellphone records attached to an affidavit in support of a search warrant filed with Los Angeles Superior Court in May.</quote> http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Deputy-Who-Killed-Napster-Exec-Was-Texting-Report-267084511.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:43:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:46:06 PM EDT
[#36]
No comment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:47:33 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:48:04 PM EDT
[#38]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:49:23 PM EDT
[#39]
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 Which page is this DA letter on? Is it going to convince me that he wasn't negligent when running someone over? 
ETA: Finally tracked it down. The anti-texting law is a side distraction that they use as justification not to charge him. Are they really expecting us to believe he didn't violate any other traffic laws by swerving into a bicycle lane? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 6:52:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All situations are fact dependent Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 In this case, employer-dependent seems more accurate, no? The facts are fairly clear. What was done with. Said facts gets a bit more murky. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:00:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this case, employer-dependent seems more accurate, no? The facts are fairly clear. What was done with. Said facts gets a bit more murky. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 In this case, employer-dependent seems more accurate, no? The facts are fairly clear. What was done with. Said facts gets a bit more murky. The fact that he was an on duty LEO is a relevant fact, yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:01:29 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:02:39 PM EDT
[#43]
I'm a little late to this party. Was I beat?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:03:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:03:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 7:03:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:05:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:10:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. 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... 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:10:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 7:11:43 PM EDT
[#50]
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 Oh we know. |
|
|
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.
