Seems like an open and shut case of...oh, it was a cop? nvm

I used to work for Olin way, way back. I was a part time recording engineer, and he was some artist rep or something. He came into the studio once in a while, but mostly just hung around the office and jabbered on the phone a lot.

I guess, if I ever hit someone while texting, my defense is that it was work related. Use this case as a basis. After all, the police are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Right?
 
Even in states that have onerous texting/phone use while driving laws, I've never seen a jurisdiction take the Mobile Terminals out of cop cars or lock their use out while the vehicle is in gear.

Total double-standard.
 
Good luck on suing him in a personal capacity. And that's not sarcasm. But I agree that it put the cop in a tough situation. He's required to use his mobile device during work and the law immunized him for negligence when performing his duties.

Tough sell either way.
 
Cop cars have brakes, brake lights, emer flashers, light bar, 2 way radio, sirens. I'm sure unless they are in high speed pursuit, they can pull over and text just like a citizen. If they are in high speed pursuit that's what the radio is for. No excuses.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Good luck on suing him in a personal capacity. And that's not sarcasm. But I agree that it put the cop in a tough situation. He's required to use his mobile device during work and the law immunized him for negligence when performing his duties.

Tough sell either way.
Click to expand...

In any other business, the business would be sued for requiring him to do so, as requiring anyone to type and drive at this point should definitely be not only negligence, but gross negligence.

Big rigs, cabs, all sorts of other vehicles doing work on the roads have computers and keyboards in them. ALL companies lock out using them when the vehicle is in gear. Many even blank out the display completely, but not all. Saying that reading the display is ok, just not typing, is a fine line, but perhaps where it should end up. Keying the radio while driving is also okay... so perhaps the answer is that anything that goes to an MVT comes through a dispatcher.

No "regular" e-mail, and acknowledgements can always be done on-air without giving away the content.

No matter how you slice it, reading and typing are not the correct way to communicate with someone operating a motor vehicle. We all know this.
 
What class do they teach texting and driving in. Hopefully the civil courts will make the city pay. Changes come when the court force them on public safety.
 
frfly172 said:
What class do they teach texting and driving in. Hopefully the civil courts will make the city pay. Changes come when the court force them on public safety.
Click to expand...


Cities don't pay. Taxpayers do. And many cities don't care at all if they have to spend taxpayer money to defend inappropriate policy.
 
Yup, exactly. The officer is exempt, immune so he doesn't care. The city counsel will just raise taxes to pay off. If you want policy change, then start criminalizing behaviors. Oh wait - there's already a criminal statute on the books, the DA just decided that he didn't want to use it. Who hires the DA in that county?

Shame about Olin. As I remember from way back, he was a pretty nice guy, but always was 'on' about something. Definitely a Type A personality.
 
docmirror said:
Yup, exactly. The officer is exempt, immune so he doesn't care. The city counsel will just raise taxes to pay off. If you want policy change, then start criminalizing behaviors. Oh wait - there's already a criminal statute on the books, the DA just decided that he didn't want to use it. Who hires the DA in that county?
Click to expand...
:heli: :popcorn:
 
I'd say jail time for the cop and take the damages (a mil or so) out of the departments pensions/retirment.

Punishes the offenders and not the people.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Good luck on suing him in a personal capacity. And that's not sarcasm. But I agree that it put the cop in a tough situation. He's required to use his mobile device during work and the law immunized him for negligence when performing his duties.

Tough sell either way.
Click to expand...

Under the color of law. That seems to be what they determined.
 
docmirror said:
Cop cars have brakes, brake lights, emer flashers, light bar, 2 way radio, sirens. I'm sure unless they are in high speed pursuit, they can pull over and text just like a citizen. If they are in high speed pursuit that's what the radio is for. No excuses.
Click to expand...

Some states have exempted their LE from the texting while driving laws.
 
Jaybird180 said:
it put the cop in a tough situation.
Click to expand...

Poor baby! How about the tuff situation the person he killed was put in, or that victims family.

I could give a rats ass about the perpetrator, I have zero sympathy.
 
The problem with illegal or improper behavior is once you've gotten away with it a few times, it becomes acceptable in your mind. The police probably do this dozens of times a day without consequences but in this case, improper behavior killed an innocent. It is the kind of thing that should prompt towns to disable distractions in their official cars while in gear.
And the officer should be held accountable for manslaughter. Fire the DA office for not taking this to court!
 
lowtimer said:
It would appear that officer convenience trumps public safety.
Click to expand...

That's an issue you would need to take up with the Tennessee General Assembly. They wrote both the general law, and the exemptions therein.
 
lowtimer said:
It would appear that officer convenience trumps public safety.
Click to expand...
Unless it is an emergency, there's no good reason to be using a cell phone, texting, emailing, or otherwise while the vehicle is in motion. It has been shown that even in speaker mode, it is a serious enough distraction to be the cause of an accident. Actually, anything that diverts your attention from the PRIMARY task is a serious distraction.
PUT DOWN THE COFFEE, DONUT, CIGARETTE, and CELLPHONE. DRIVE THE CAR or GET OFF THE ROAD! (seen a woman doing all four at once while tailgating!)
 
I got behind one of our local deputies a few months ago, from directly behind his car, I could his computer was on FACEBOOK!:nono::nono:
 
N747JB said:
I got behind one of our local deputies a few months ago, from directly behind his car, I could his computer was on FACEBOOK!:nono::nono:
Click to expand...

In all fairness, that's probably the best way to find someone or figure out what illegal activites people are up to.
 
James331 said:
Poor baby! How about the tuff situation the person he killed was put in, or that victims family.

I could give a rats ass about the perpetrator, I have zero sympathy.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things that Emergency Responders are exempt from in their personal capacity and for good reason. It is unfortunate that this happened, and I agree that the judgment of the DA was compromised by conflict of interest.

When DC passed the Cellphone law, someone complained that police officers are notorious violators. Chief Cathy Lanier retorted that citizens should report officers who violate the law, they are not exempt.

I still see cops on their phones.
 
N747JB said:
I got behind one of our local deputies a few months ago, from directly behind his car, I could his computer was on FACEBOOK!:nono::nono:
Click to expand...

As unlikely as it may seem, I've heard that some LEOs may have social lives.
 
Jaybird180 said:
There are a lot of things that Emergency Responders are exempt from in their personal capacity and for good reason. It is unfortunate that this happened, and I agree that the judgment of the DA was compromised by conflict of interest.

When DC passed the Cellphone law, someone complained that police officers are notorious violators. Chief Cathy Lanier retorted that citizens should report officers who violate the law, they are not exempt.

I still see cops on their phones.
Click to expand...

I work in EMS and we have very strict policy's on electronic devices and distractions, safe and prudent is the term that comes to mind. If I was texting and hit a person resulting in their death, my company and union would hang me out to dry, and rightfully so.

He could have pulled over if it was that important, otherwise that's what his onboard radio is for.

How are people even TRYING to defend the perpetrator of a mans death here?!

Clark1961 said:
As unlikely as it may seem, I've heard that some LEOs may have social lives.
Click to expand...



That's what OFF DUTY time is for
 
Jaybird180 said:
There are a lot of things that Emergency Responders are exempt from in their personal capacity and for good reason. It is unfortunate that this happened, and I agree that the judgment of the DA was compromised by conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Wow. Way to go out on a limb. LEO was reckless, man dies and it's 'unfortunate'. I guess that's like when your planet is in the way of a new hyper-space bypass. Soooooo unfortunate there Earth.
 
You're upset with me because I'm not joining the Lynch Mob???

Geez, if only you knew about my background....
 
I just reviewed every post in this thread that was critical of the LEO. Not only is there no rush to judgment vis-a-vis hanging anyone, quite the opposite. All seem to be saying that the LEO should face the same code of justice that would be meted out to a citizen given the same set of circumstances.

So - hyperbole aside, what we are all clamoring for is due process, and an effective DA who works for the citizens(remember them?) and not for the LEO who are exempt from what is clearly been drummed into us as dangerous.

<edit: I, and the due process don't really care about your background. That's for the sentencing phase, after investigation, indictment, discovery, trial, verdict. >
 
docmirror said:
I just reviewed every post in this thread that was critical of the LEO. Not only is there no rush to judgment vis-a-vis hanging anyone, quite the opposite. All seem to be saying that the LEO should face the same code of justice that would be meted out to a citizen given the same set of circumstances.

So - hyperbole aside, what we are all clamoring for is due process, and an effective DA who works for the citizens(remember them?) and not for the LEO who are exempt from what is clearly been drummed into us as dangerous.

<edit: I, and the due process don't really care about your background. That's for the sentencing phase, after investigation, indictment, discovery, trial, verdict. >
Click to expand...
That's the process you got. The DA was elected to use judgement to prosecute/ not prosecute. He used a lawful exepmtion to justify not prosecuting.

For the record: i agree the city is responsible for the man's death. But the problem is the statute. Deal with the DA at ballot time.
 
Jaybird180 said:
That's the process you got. The DA was elected to use judgement to prosecute/ not prosecute. He used a lawful exepmtion to justify not prosecuting.

For the record: i agree the city is responsible for the man's death. But the problem is the statute. Deal with the DA at ballot time.
Click to expand...

You're agreeing with someting I didn't say. The city is not responsible for the man's death. The individual who is employed by the city is responsible. The 'city' is not a responsible citizen. The city has a duty to it's citizens to make and enforce the laws of the state equitably. As has been said quite clearly, the city should not be held liable. The LEO should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law(like a citizen), and the police retirement fund should be liable civilly for the mistakes of their member.
 
Ok here's an unpopular opinion I have....

Even if he was a civilian the penalty ought to have been a stiff fine and at worst a suspended license. I don't believe in putting people in jail and ruining their lives over an accident that if we're all honest could have been caused by any of us because I don't think one driver on the road hasn't had a distracted moment.

The guy has to live with it, he'll no doubt be more careful in the future, and not one thing of value is served by destroying his life, career, etc. The tragic consequences of the accident are irrelevant.

Human beings are flawed. Who hasn't had a moment behind the wheel or in the cockpit where they messed up/did something foolish.... and things might have ended tragically if luck had broken the wrong way. You would have been the monster if some kid had run out in the road in that moment you dropped something and took your eyes off the road... Or whatever. I think it's incredible arrogance and hypocrisy to point to people like this and call them terrible people when most of us aren't any better... if we're honest.
 
cowman said:
a stiff fine and at worst a suspended license. I don't believe in putting people in jail and ruining their lives over an accident that if we're all honest could have been caused by any of us because I don't think one driver on the road hasn't had a distracted moment.

.
Click to expand...

Uhh, you shouldn't have a driver license if that's the case, it's not like it was a dark night and the guy just jumped into the middle of the road wearing a black ninja outfit.

The cop (who should be held to a higher standard) was TEXTING while driving, which to me is almost worse then drinking and driving, he hit a man and KILLED him.
 
Last edited:
This brings the ideas of mens rea and culpable negligence into clear relief. Standards in this area have been changing for the worse(IMNSHO) in the past 50 years. No one is 'responsible' for their actions any more. It's an excused mistake, and wholly dependent not on what you know, but whom you know. Which is the situation we have in this case.

I'm sure that the LEO didn't intend, or mean to kill the COO. So, mens rea is out, his mind was pure, and he actually did have an accident. Next, we have culpable negligent behavior. Here's where things go badly off the tracks. LEOs more than citizens know better the dangers of distracted driving, and they enforce those standards with vigor. Society has walked a fine balance between the freedom to text, and the freedom to drive, but not simultaneously. Some states have rigid laws on the books, and some states are playing catch up. I believe CA is one of the more onerous states in this regard due to all the driving that goes on out there, and the constant need for people to be 'in touch' with the rest of the world.

So, what does the 'reasonable man' standard in the state of CA say about negligence due to distracted driving in CA? I'm guessing it could be a felony, pretty serious one punishable by 2-10 years in the pokey. It could also be no-billed because the DA is worried about his relationship and ability to do his job, and his financial future were he to indict a cop for something that we would all be prosecuted for.

Accidents happen, I've bent some tin in a car that I should have known better about. That's why we have insurance, and that's why we have civil statutes. But - when we know, without question that it's very dangerous to drive while distracted, this could, and usually would be considered negligent by the reasonable man. I'm no fan of criminalizing things, but gosh, where do we then draw the line on responsible behavior? Mine is that I don't want people texting while driving. I've done it in the past, and know how dangerous it can be.
 
If person A is texting and driving and gets caught by the police, they get a fine and points on their licence. If person B does the same thing and hits & kills someone they're a murderer and get jail time? That doesn't make sense to me as the act it's self is the same, person B and the person who got run over just had the bad roll of the dice to meet at that distracted moment. People have dropped a lit cigarette or their soda from Mc Donald's and had the same outcomes, I don't think it makes sense to escalate a punishment because something tragic happened.

But let me share with you the life experience I had that made me think this way. I had a friend in high school who had a well earned reputation as a reckless driver. I personally saw him do some crazy/scary stuff. Well one night he was driving with one of his friends who I didn't know and there was an accident. The outcome of this accident was he was in a coma for several months, his friend died that night. Nobody saw what happened, but based on his reputation and some skid marks everyone pretty much made up their minds he'd been driving excessively fast... an alternate theory of swerving for a deer was floated and given where it happened that's very likely too.... maybe both things were true. He doesn't remember and the other guy died. No evidence of alcohol or drugs and he wasn't a drinker so that seems right.

The parents of the kid who died lawyered up tried to get my friend put in jail at age 17 for man slaughter. They reached some kind of plea agreement where his licence was suspended. He came back to school on crutches and with really slow awkward speech from the brain injury. As the town had it's mind made up kids called him murderer in the halls and the faculty didn't do anything about it...and even seemed to quietly agree in some cases. He dropped out... who can blame him?

Couple years later I was living in a nearby town just starting college. He moved in next door... his speech was normal again and he walked normally but he had pain when he did(still does). Not a lot of public transportation around and with a bad leg that was really limiting. I gave him a lot of rides. He went to court again and again to get his license back... kid's mother always showed up to block it. He managed to get a GED... walking a couple of miles in pain to class on some days too. A couple of years of driving him everywhere and he finally did get a license again. He went on to get a degree in sociology... but he's always been set back by those events.

I had a really close look at the other side of that kind of thing and it left me wondering what the point was. I understand the mother being so upset but what good did it do anyone to put my friend through all of that? What if he'd actually gone to jail? What good was that to anyone? He doesn't even know what happened for sure and i know it haunts him still... seems like enough punishment.

Because of this I've told my wife and others repeatedly that if I'm killed in an accident like that, I don't want them to seek revenge. If the person is at all remorseful for it, I want them to be forgiven. To me it's just making a tragedy worse.
 
I can appreciate the story. And I see that your association with the driver shaped the way you feel, and I can respect that. In fact, I've basically told my family something quite similar, that in the event of an accident, aviation or otherwise, don't go out for blood if I don't make it. Unless there is clear negligence, don't let anger, and resentment against the other culpable person rule your, or their future.

Now, having said that, we need to address two other things that I think are cogent. First, law is not based on emotion in a republic. We are not an eye for an eye, or a vengeful society(in theory, we all know it happens). We use the law to determine responsibility, and the mitigation factors are only in play, after a determination of guilt or innocence is completed, at which time the guilty party may have a very wide range of punishment accorded. So - when I read this story, your friend had a hard go of it from the time he was 17, until many years later. He suffered, and sweated, and hurt for years. But - his suffering was by your own admission, a result of his own actions. Maybe he was reckless, maybe it was a deer, but the fact that he agreed to a license suspension tells me that there were enough mitigating circumstance that the law felt he was culpable for being somewhat negligent. This is what I was talking about previously. Even if it was a deer which was the proximate cause, his driving style clearly contributed to the damage done.

Now, speaking about the damage done. On the one hand, we have an injured young man, with years of pain, and rehab in front of him. Permanently damaged, by his actions behind the wheel and that surely is sad. On the other side - we have a grieving family, who has lost the life of their offspring, and maybe brother, sister, cousin for ever. He's never, ever coming back, and will never comfort his family again. This is sobering enough, and the damage done, can't be ameliorated by years of rehab.

I don't know any more than I've read, but in this case - I have to side with the law. They took away his license, and after the years he spent to get it back, finally I'm pretty sure he never ever would drive with abandon again. So - the philosophy of punishment and rehabilitation(criminal) seems to have worked perfectly in this case.
 
docmirror said:
You're agreeing with someting I didn't say. The city is not responsible for the man's death. The individual who is employed by the city is responsible. The 'city' is not a responsible citizen. The city has a duty to it's citizens to make and enforce the laws of the state equitably. As has been said quite clearly, the city should not be held liable. The LEO should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law(like a citizen), and the police retirement fund should be liable civilly for the mistakes of their member.
Click to expand...

The city is responsible because it required him to use the laptop to perform his lawful duties and enabled its use while driving. You'd don't punish one cop for what hundreds could have done given the right mix of circimstances; its a policy/ procedural (systemic) flaw.

He wasn't texting. He was doing his job - at least according to the article, no indication he was facebooking, or PoAing or something like that.

According to the article, the family filed a wrongful death suit against the Sheriff's Dept, accusing the deputy of negligence. This is the proper filing to make, sqaurely in civil court which is how the flaws get corrected not via criminal charges.
 
Jaybird180 said:
According to the article, the family filed a wrongful death suit against the Sheriff's Dept, accusing the deputy of negligence. This is the proper filing to make, sqaurely in civil court which is how the flaws get corrected not via criminal charges.
Click to expand...

There is another point of view here and that the LEO has personal responsibility for their actions. No one held a gun to the LEO's head and said that you have to respond to this email right now while you are driving. The LEO had the opportunity to do the right thing which was stop the vehicle. The LEO chose not to do so ant that is at the very least careless driving. The result of the LEO's careless driving was the inadvertent death of a bicyclist. The LEO should be prosecuted for the LEO's careless act which resulted in a death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top