cops paralyzes kid, is found not guilty/is still a cop

[OBLAMA2009]

Of course we may never know exactly what occured, but it is fairly telling that:



So quite simply the police concluded that had this officer not been breaking the law, the boy would not have been struck. That is a pretty big statement to make, but they made it. I don't think the best approach to this case is "Oh well, it's terrible, but terrible things happen, oh well." I think the issue people are having is that if this were you or me behind the wheel, we'd be serving hard time, and this officer will not be. There is an inequity in the treatment of the man who maimed this child simply because he is an officer of the law.

it should be pointed out that this cop wasnt even working at the time, he was speeding as he was using a city car to drive to his other job

 

[Jeeebus]

Of course we may never know exactly what occured, but it is fairly telling that:



So quite simply the police concluded that had this officer not been breaking the law, the boy would not have been struck. That is a pretty big statement to make, but they made it. I don't think the best approach to this case is "Oh well, it's terrible, but terrible things happen, oh well." I think the issue people are having is that if this were you or me behind the wheel, we'd be serving hard time, and this officer will not be. There is an inequity in the treatment of the man who maimed this child simply because he is an officer of the law.

I'm willing to share the outrage, but would need a few examples of non-cops that were speeding, but not otherwise impaired, that are now serving jail sentences for hitting someone. There may be dozens of examples, but without them, statements like that don't mean anything.

 

[Freshgeardude]

they need to repeal the 200k limit per case liability for the government law.

they have it here in florida, too.

its total bullshit.

thats why its only 400k.

 

[AMDZen]

I always knew I should have worked to become a cop. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, and eventually I would probably hate myself altogether - but damn, it would be fun

 

[TheVrolok]

it should be pointed out that this cop wasnt even working at the time, he was speeding as he was using a city car to drive to his other job

Yep, but because he was driving his cruiser and wearing his uniform he is still protected by "on-duty" laws. I know it worked the same for EMS when I used to run. If I were in my uniform and walked by an incident I had a legal duty to act even though I may have technically been off duty. Although, it's still bullshit, this guy has more of an excuse to get away with it because he was inappropriately driving his cruiser/wearing his uniform?

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm willing to share the outrage, but would need a few examples of non-cops that were speeding, but not otherwise impaired, that are now serving jail sentences for hitting someone. There may be dozens of examples, but without them, statements like that don't mean anything.

Common sense would say they exist, but I have no idea how to search the Internet for such a thing. My ignorance/inability to search does not, however, imply that they do not exist.

 

[Jeeebus]

Common sense would say they exist, but I have no idea how to search the Internet for such a thing. My ignorance/inability to search does not, however, imply that they do not exist.

Nor would it imply that they do exist. All I'm saying is that if someone is going to make a bold statement like that, there should hopefully be some evidence to back it up. Personal rage/bias not included.

 

[holden j caufield]

I have a feeling this guy was going faster than 47 or whatever. It's going to be his fellow cops doing the incident report and I'm sure they tamed down the speed. If they are given extra trust the penalties should be higher not lower. And 23 y/o should not be given free reign, they should dish out parking tickets, deal with the public for a few years or always be with another supervising officer.

Also wtf at taxpayers paying for the car, maintenance, gas for someone going to another job. Everyone else would get canned just for that, much less driving excessively and hurting someone.

 

[TheVrolok]

Nor would it imply that they do exist. All I'm saying is that if someone is going to make a bold statement like that, there should hopefully be some evidence to back it up. Personal rage/bias not included.

You're claiming that stating a non-LEO person grossly exceeding the speed limit, while being otherwise unimpaired, and permanently maiming another individual, would face severe penalties is a bold statement? So you're saying it's just as likely that they would not face severe penalties? I think not.

 

[Jeeebus]

You're claiming that stating a non-LEO person grossly exceeding the speed limit, while being otherwise unimpaired, and permanently maiming another individual, would face severe penalties is a bold statement? So you're saying it's just as likely that they would not face severe penalties? I think not.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm looking at this from a completely neutral standpoint. Someone has represented to me that if this guy was a construction worker, architect, doctor, etc., he would be facing jail time. I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve the statement as presented. If you want me to believe it, you need to provide me with some kind of evidence. I'm not going to assume the truth of a statement just because someone on ATOT says so.

 

[TheVrolok]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm looking at this from a completely neutral standpoint. Someone has represented to me that if this guy was a construction worker, architect, doctor, etc., he would be facing jail time. I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve the statement as presented. If you want me to believe it, you need to provide me with some kind of evidence. I'm not going to assume the truth of a statement just because someone on ATOT says so.

Right, and I understand the point in maintaining neutral viewpoints in some circumstances. What you're saying here by doing that, though, is that you would see no reason why a normal citizen would face sterner charges for maiming an individual while speeding. Common sense would dictate that if one is breaking the law, and maims another because of it, that person is going to face prosecution resulting in more than a 200 dollar fine. Argue neutrality all you want, but you're then ignoring common sense. I understand common sense has no place in a logical argument where proof is required, but I'm speaking realistically here, not rhetorically.

 

[Jeeebus]

Right, and I understand the point in maintaining neutral viewpoints in some circumstances. What you're saying here by doing that, though, is that you would see no reason why a normal citizen would face sterner charges for maiming an individual while speeding. Common sense would dictate that if one is breaking the law, and maims another because of it, that person is going to face prosecution resulting in more than a 200 dollar fine. Argue neutrality all you want, but you're then ignoring common sense. I understand common sense has no place in a logical argument where proof is required, but I'm speaking realistically here, not rhetorically.

I think both of our google skills probably need improvement.

Not for nothing, I spent a couple minutes searching and came across a few stories:

Not exactly on point, but cop convicted of negligent operation (as opposed to homicide) when he ran over a girl on a bike

Teen charged in crash that kills his friends - alcohol and speeding apparently at issue

This looks like someone getting charged with homicide where only speeding was involved

So I guess there's at least some support for the proposition, but I suspect the vast majority of these type of cases - whether someone is charged or not - don't make google'able news.