Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,955
Criminal Mexi Midget
While Texting And Driving — Because It's Apparently OK For Police To Do That

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy Andrew Wood will not be charged for fatally running over former Napster COO Milton Olin Jr. in his patrol car while the officer was typing a message into his computer.

The instance exposes the different way that law enforcement officials are treated versus civilians in cases where a person is killed because of texting while driving.

It's illegal to text and drive in California; the state has a specific law against it. Civilians caught doing it can expect to face charges. But a report from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office shows that the rules may be applied differently to cops.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-not-charged-killing-095951755.html

cops should be held to at LEAST the same standards as civilians are.
 

kilcher

macrumors 65816
Jul 3, 2011
1,262
313
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-not-charged-killing-095951755.html

cops should be held to at LEAST the same standards as civilians are.
Is it illegal to type on a computer and drive? Because technically that's what he was doing, not texting.

Yes, I know there's not much difference but when politicians and special interest groups use buzzwords like texting in their campaigns it bothers me. I can't text on my phone and drive, can I play Angry Birds?

I would guess (though I'm far from being a legal expert) the family could still file a civil suit.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Most state laws exempt on duty law enforcement from their texting and driving laws. These laws are written to make using a computer, telephone or tablet for messaging unlawful.
 

TheHateMachine

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2012
836
849
Most state laws exempt on duty law enforcement from their texting and driving laws. These laws are written to make using a computer, telephone or tablet for messaging unlawful.
Apparently, California state laws exempt police officers from running people over with their car laws too.
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,897
9,011
Come on. Don't let common sense get in the way.

23125.5 (e) VC - exempts emergency services professionals from the prohibition during the course of employment. Other sections also exempt emergency services professionals from stopping at stop signs and other traffic control devices as well as speed limits.

----------

I'll bet he gets pegged in civil court.
He will be indemnified so he won't but the city wll.

----------

Apparently, California state laws exempt police officers from running people over with their car laws too.
This kind of trash gets old. Unreasonable.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,955
Criminal Mexi Midget
Come on. Don't let common sense get in the way.

23125.5 (e) VC - exempts emergency services professionals from the prohibition during the course of employment. Other sections also exempt emergency services professionals from stopping at stop signs and other traffic control devices as well as speed limits.

----------



He will be indemnified so he won't but the city wll.
Common sense means pulling over so you don't kill others while driving distracted
 

Solomani

macrumors 68040
Sep 25, 2012
3,702
6,182
Alberto, Canado
So you agree he shouldn't be charged, yes or no?
If the State law legal allowed him (or other cops) to do what he did, then technically he's not at fault.

The dumb law itself is what people should be targeting. That's what they should spend their energy crusading against.

Look. If some State allowed legal killing and butchering and eating of cats, and I went ahead and did so, am I legally guilty of crime? No. Despite millions of people being upset about my cat-eating habits, I'm not really guilty of anything as far as State Law is concerned. Don't waste your time on me. Spend your efforts trying to lobby and correct the laws of whichever State that allowed me to legally kill and butcher and eat cats to begin with.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
This kind of trash gets old. Unreasonable.
The guy was driving distracted, and killed someone because of it. I can't believe people are excusing it!

Jesus, people. Just because they're police, and they have a hard job, doesn't mean they can be as reckless as you want to be, and not be held accountable for obvious gross negligence. I mean this wasn't even an accident made in the line of duty. He was driving along on a beat, talking to someone on his computer, and he ran over a guy riding his bicycle in the goddamn bike lane.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,955
Criminal Mexi Midget
If the State law legal allowed him (or other cops) to do what he did, then technically he's not at fault.

The dumb law itself is what people should be targeting. That's what they should spend their energy crusading against.

Look. If some State allowed legal killing and butchering and eating of cats, and I went ahead and did so, am I legally guilty of crime? No. Despite millions of people being upset about my cat-eating habits, I'm not really guilty of anything as far as State Law is concerned. Don't waste your time on me. Spend your efforts trying to lobby and correct the laws of whichever State that allowed me to legally kill and butcher and eat cats to begin with.
agreed to a degree, law needs to be changed & cops should be held to the same standards as regular citizens

----------

Surely at the very least he is guilty of driving without due care? That requirement doesn't change according to your occupation.
he is guilty of falsifying the report as well , from link

In a statement taken at the scene, Wood claimed that Olin had veered into his lane. The DA reported that the opposite was true.
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,897
9,011
The guy was driving distracted, and killed someone because of it. I can't believe people are excusing it!

Jesus, people. Just because they're police, and they have a hard job, doesn't mean they can be as reckless as you want to be, and not be held accountable for obvious gross negligence. I mean this wasn't even an accident made in the line of duty. He was driving along on a beat, talking to someone on his computer, and he ran over a guy riding his bicycle in the goddamn bike lane.
The cop was acting in the course of his employment. The law exempts emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) from not being able to use their MDT or MDC. He wasn't watching porn he was doing his job. It was an accident. He should not be charged with a criminal offense unless he was outside the law.

As far as gross negligence, it has a legal definition.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,993
Republic of Ukistan
The cop was acting in the course of his employment. The law exempts emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) from not being able to use their MDT or MDC. He wasn't watching porn he was doing his job. It was an accident. He should not be charged with a criminal offense unless he was outside the law.
He was self-evidently driving in a manner dangerous to other road users.
 

Solomani

macrumors 68040
Sep 25, 2012
3,702
6,182
Alberto, Canado
Surely at the very least he is guilty of driving without due care? That requirement doesn't change according to your occupation.
I do agree that there is some level of negligence involved. But still, if the State law has it in writing that cops were allowed to multi-task, then he automatically has some level of legal defense.

Like others chimed in, he likely will be held accountable in a civil lawsuit, where things like reasonability or 'unreasonable use' are taken more into consideration. Hopefully trial by jury, where (assuming the jurors are reasonable people) he is more likely to be convicted.

I'm not for or against this cop. But you cannot just dismiss existing laws. If you don't like the existing laws, then lobby to change and correct them, or to change the wording of the laws, especially the loopholes.
 

skottichan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
879
901
Columbus, OH
The cop was acting in the course of his employment. The law exempts emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) from not being able to use their MDT or MDC. He wasn't watching porn he was doing his job. It was an accident. He should not be charged with a criminal offense unless he was outside the law.

As far as gross negligence, it has a legal definition.
No, he should be charged with vehicular manslaughter. You're right, he's exempt from the misdemeanor charge under 23125.5 (e) VC, but he killed someone. He should be charged for that.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,955
Criminal Mexi Midget
The cop was acting in the course of his employment. The law exempts emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) from not being able to use their MDT or MDC. He wasn't watching porn he was doing his job. It was an accident. He should not be charged with a criminal offense unless he was outside the law.

As far as gross negligence, it has a legal definition.
just doing their job is a cop out for many things

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict/
"These peace officers were doing their job. They had no malice in their heart," said John Barnett, an attorney for Ramos.
the bar for letting cops murder others is pretty low.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
So you agree he shouldn't be charged, yes or no?
No, he should no be charged, nor will he. You can't charge someone who did not violate the law. The law specifically exempts him from being charged. Further, he cannot be sued personally for it. We can argue that it isn't a good law or practice but not whether he should be charged or not.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
"These peace officers were doing their job. They had no malice in their heart," said John Barnett, an attorney for Ramos.
So then it's manslaughter and not murder, right? :eek:

America never ceases to amaze me at how it bends over backwards whenever a so-called "public servant" does something reckless and hurts someone else.
 

Solomani

macrumors 68040
Sep 25, 2012
3,702
6,182
Alberto, Canado
just doing their job is a cop out for many things
"Just doing my job" successfully worked as an excuse for millions of WW2 German citizens who were pro-Nazi, surviving Nazi soldiers, and other paramilitary officers. We know that millions of them supported the policies of the Third Reich all along.

But in the end, the Nuremberg Trials only indicted 24 people for War Crimes. Just 24.
 

localoid

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2007
2,428
1,722
America's Third World
Hell, there was a civil suite against a policemen in my region who allegedly bragged to numerous persons that he routinely masturbated while talking to various women on his cell phone, while he drove around town in the city's police cruiser.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Hell, there was a civil suite against a policemen in my region who allegedly bragged to numerous persons that he routinely masturbated while talking to various women on his cell phone, while he drove around town in the city's police cruiser.
Masturbation wasn't in his job description. Therefore not part of the duties of the job.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,955
Criminal Mexi Midget
Hell, there was a civil suite against a policemen in my region who allegedly bragged to numerous persons that he routinely masturbated while talking to various women on his cell phone, while he drove around town in the city's police cruiser.
was he charged? did he get off? :p