Deputy who ran over Napster COO while distracted with laptop will not face charges

[xBiffx]

I'm not sure what the exact law is, but I'm pretty sure you can't make false statements to law enforcement.

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

Probably because Olin might have thought that it what happened? I have no idea. Investigation pointed out it was the other way around. The DA didn't seem to think Olin was intentionally making false statements, otherwise, you would have seen the charge.

Just because statements made to the police turn out to be incorrect doesn't mean you're guilty of a crime.

 

[her209]

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123_5.htm

Electronic Wireless Communications Device: Prohibited Use

23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text–based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voiceoperated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.

(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text–based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device.

(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Added Sec. 2, Ch. 270, Stats. 2008. Effective January 1, 2009.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 92, Stats. 2012. Effective January 1, 2013.

Hmmm, no where does it excuse the emergency services professional from being responsible for the injury and death of the cyclist.

 

[xBiffx]

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123_5.htm



Hmmm, no where does it excuse the emergency services professional from being responsible for the injury and death of the cyclist.

(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

He can't be charged with a crime for operating his laptop according to section (e).

He isn't being excused from it, hence the likely pending civil suit.

 

[ch33zw1z]

 

[her209]

He can't be charged with a crime for operating his laptop according to section (e).

Which he isn't. But it doesn't say he isn't responsible for what happens afterwards due to the use of the laptop.

He isn't being excused from it, hence the likely pending civil suit.

Of which he won't be have to pay a cent. It'll all come from the taxpayers.

 

[Rebel_L]

He can't be charged with a crime for operating his laptop according to section (e).

He isn't being excused from it, hence the likely pending civil suit.

I really don't understand why are you so focused on electronic device laws when the law he broke is killing someone. If you wanted to be able to charge him with a driving related offense I am sure the state impaired driving law is broad enough to include other sources besides drinking. The evidence that his driving skill was impaired is pretty clear, he did after all run down someone in a lane he should not have been in.

 

[xBiffx]

I really don't understand why are you so focused on electronic device laws when the law he broke is killing someone. If you wanted to be able to charge him with a driving related offense I am sure the state impaired driving law is broad enough to include other sources besides drinking. The evidence that his driving skill was impaired is pretty clear, he did after all run down someone in a lane he should not have been in.

The killing of the cyclist was deemed an accident because the deputy was acting lawfully otherwise.

 

[Brovane]

No, you sure don't. But when the law specifically says that you can be doing something that could be considered negligent, its difficult to charge somebody with such.

This law is idiotic, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore it in this case as much as some people would like to. That's not the way the system works. Bitch to the idiots in the statehouse, not the deputy.

I agree the law is idiotic and yeah it would be difficult to prove negligence. Mysteriously it is safe for them to use hand-held electronic equipment while driving but for civlians it isnt? My frustration about the entire incident was that LASD handled the investigation themselves. It should have been turned over to another agency to investigate. I suspect that a couple of days from now this will all be forgotten about and everyone will move on and the taxpayers will be paying millions for the civil suit damages.

 

[cirrrocco]

The same cop suckers in every thread gets boring with their lame ass cop sucking excuses.

 

[cirrrocco]

I have a critical cutover issue at work and I am checking my "mobile digiral computer" and kill 10 school kids. You will have cop suckers like xbiff, londo crying for my blood and all the talk about personal responsibility blah blah blah.

use the same standards morons

 

[xBiffx]

I have a critical cutover issue at work and I am checking my "mobile digiral computer" and kill 10 school kids. You will have cop suckers like xbiff, londo crying for my blood and all the talk about personal responsibility blah blah blah.

use the same standards morons

There isn't the same standard for emergency services professionals. The law has already been linked. L2r.

 

[Rebel_L]

The killing of the cyclist was deemed an accident because the deputy was acting lawfully otherwise.

And here I thought the officer was in a bicycle lane and ran over a cyclist. Silly me for thinking that was illegal regardless of it being accidental. If prosecuters felt there was some benefit to charging him with something I would bet large quantities of money that they could easily come up with half a dozen laws they could charge him under. They obviously decided it was not a benefit to either their career or the public to charge him. But saying there is no valid charges that could be brought is like saying its ok to break the law so long as you do it by accident (I don't think the cops would ever hand out another speeding ticket if they had to prove intent to speed to hand out a ticket) We convict people all the time for accidently breaking the law, its on the sentencing end that intention matters, not on the verdict (unless the law specifically requires intention, like first degree muder).

 

[xBiffx]

And here I thought the officer was in a bicycle lane and ran over a cyclist. Silly me for thinking that was illegal regardless of it being accidental. If prosecuters felt there was some benefit to charging him with something I would bet large quantities of money that they could easily come up with half a dozen laws they could charge him under. They obviously decided it was not a benefit to either their career or the public to charge him. But saying there is no valid charges that could be brought is like saying its ok to break the law so long as you do it by accident (I don't think the cops would ever hand out another speeding ticket if they had to prove intent to speed to hand out a ticket) We convict people all the time for accidently breaking the law, its on the sentencing end that intention matters, not on the verdict (unless the law specifically requires intention, like first degree muder).

It's an accidental death. Not criminal. Get over it already.

 

[her209]

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/penalco/penco192.htm

Penal Code Section 192

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

(c) Vehicular-

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

(2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.

(3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision shall not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.

This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.

“Gross negligence,” as used in this section, shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

(Amended Sec. 2, Ch. 91, Stats. 2006. Effective January 1, 2007.)

Driving and typing on the laptop may have been a lawful act, but driving into the bicycle lane and thus into the cyclist is an unlawful act.

 

[BoberFett]

There isn't the same standard for emergency services professionals. The law has already been linked. L2r.

Because they're magically able to use electronic devices while driving? Does a badge imbue supernatural powers in cops? Are they immune to distracted driving?

The law is wrong. Period. Linking to it doesn't change that fact.

Lots of wrong things have been legal, that doesn't make them right.

 

[Oldgamer]

More sensationalist bullshit from Oldliar.

Nowhere does it say that he veered into the bicycle lane. He drifted into it. The article you linked even uses the same terminology. There is a huge difference between the too.



More lying from the perpetual cop hater.

Good lord Buffoonx, take a chill pill. Veered, swerved, drifted all pretty much mean the same thing. Jeesh..talk about uptight.🙄

 

[xBiffx]

Because they're magically able to use electronic devices while driving? Does a badge imbue supernatural powers in cops? Are they immune to distracted driving?

The law is wrong. Period. Linking to it doesn't change that fact.

Lots of wrong things have been legal, that doesn't make them right.

Hey I agree with you. You'll notice that by me saying that the law is stupid several times. So I'm not sure why you're telling me all that.

 

[khon]

I'm not surprised at all, it's the US, cops can literally get away with murder.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Actually, the more I'm reading about it across the internets, the more I'm seeing that drivers (cop or not) are RARELY ever charged with something serious when accidentally hitting a bike unless they were on something. It seems more common for either no charges or a misdemeanor and small fine.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Manslaughter is manslaughter whether your buddies did it or not... this is why even conservatives are increasing turning against cops. Bad cops are bad cops; they're supposed to be rare, but good cops/da's/judges who protect bad cops are also bad... Rot at the core spreads outward.

 

[moonbogg]

Cop kills innocent, unarmed guy, but riots not expected. Why?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Cop kills innocent, unarmed guy, but riots not expected. Why?

Because it was manslaughter and not downright coldblooded murder in a neighborhood with long standing institutionalized prejudice and oppression against that persons race with some extraordinary mental gymnastics and cover-up involved?

 

[positivedoppler]

I don't get it. I can only conclude that the napster COO is black and he was charging the police officer's vehicle so he ran him over in self defense because the COO was biking aggressively