HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Police Officer Will Not B...

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:17 PM

Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec While Texting And Driving —

Source: Business Insider Online News

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.

The incident involving Olin and Wood happened in December 2013 in Calabasas, California. Olin, a key figure at the peer-to-peer music-sharing company that pioneered the online music download industry, was cycling in the bicycle lane when he was killed instantly by Wood's patrol car.

Wood drifted into the bicycle lane while typing a reply to a colleague who wanted to know whether any other officers were required to attend a fire reported at a high school he had just left. He was trying to tell the other officer that no further backup was needed.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/police-officer-will-not-be-charged-in-killing-of-napster-executive-2014-8#ixzz3Bo3zXhzw

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/police-officer-will-not-be-charged-in-killing-of-napster-executive-2014-8#ixzz3BnglQVkK



Another example of how the law only applies to regular folks and how the police don't intend to police their own criminal behavior

25 replies, 6024 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec While Texting And Driving — (Original post)
neohippie Aug 2014 OP
sakabatou Aug 2014 #1
rocktivity Aug 2014 #2
Historic NY Aug 2014 #10
Rose Siding Aug 2014 #21
malthaussen Aug 2014 #3
neohippie Aug 2014 #4
TRoN33 Aug 2014 #5
Faryn Balyncd Aug 2014 #6
Dawson Leery Aug 2014 #7
neohippie Aug 2014 #8
neohippie Aug 2014 #9
valerief Aug 2014 #11
ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2014 #12
Faryn Balyncd Aug 2014 #18
Rose Siding Aug 2014 #22
blkmusclmachine Aug 2014 #13
damnedifIknow Aug 2014 #14
proverbialwisdom Aug 2014 #15
cantbeserious Aug 2014 #16
ReRe Aug 2014 #17
Deadbeat Republicans Aug 2014 #19
passiveporcupine Aug 2014 #20
The Wizard Aug 2014 #23
Dawson Leery Aug 2014 #25
wildbilln864 Aug 2014 #24

Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:19 PM

1. Ugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:24 PM

2. "Police officers are expected to respond quickly to messages from colleagues"

And pulling over would have taken, what, twenty seconds out of his life???


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:47 PM

10. Problem is picking up a microphone vs a keyboard....

they pack tens of thousands worth of electronic crap thats worthless when you have stupid or a lack of common sense training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 05:02 PM

21. Might have mattered a little if he was on the way to an incident

But in this case, not at all. He could pull over just like the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:26 PM

3. That's a truly lame excuse, there.

This hardly constituted an emergency situation where an immediate response was needed. And in any case, they should just pull over and stop before responding. This is witless. But then, so is texting and driving under any circumstances.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:26 PM

4. The Officer also lied and said that the rider drifted into his lane

While the opposite was true, and he had also been texting his wife about the same time that the incident occurred. I guess there will be a civil suit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:36 PM

5. If that was oil executive instead...

 

Corporations would pay millions to California to hang this policeman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:37 PM

6. Nor is the DA charging the officer for making a FALSE STATEMENT or obstruction of justice...




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



Actually, it appears the DA should be charged with obstruction of justice, and the officer with negligent homicide and with the making of false statements, (apparently to fellow officers making the accident report.)











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:43 PM

7. Any state agent with the authority to enforce laws must have

civilian oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:44 PM

8. more information here



http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/08/28/cop-killed-napster-coo-milt-olin-will-charged

In an official evaluation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office (top page above; full document here), witnesses indicated that Wood veered into the bicycle lane because of sloppy, distracted driving. Wood was not pursuing another vehicle, and was not actively responding to an emergency. Wood did not even apply the brakes prior to the collision, and said he didn’t even see Olin prior to the accident (at 1:05 pm in the sunny afternoon).

In a discussion this week with the Los Angeles Times, Olin family attorney Bruce Broillet said that the Los Angeles Police Department has denied any access to critical forensic evidence from the patrol car and scene. That includes any access to a black box or dashcam (if that even existed at the time of the crash). Furthermore, the family has not been given access to critical forensic evidence collected from the crash scene by LAPD officers.

The family is pursuing a wrongful death lawsuit. “The family is deeply frustrated by the lack of information coming out of the Sheriff’s Department’s investigation,” Broillet offered in a statement. “We intend to seek justice for Milton Olin and his loved ones.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:46 PM

9. here is the LA Times story

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-deputy-texting-exnapster-exec-struck-killed-20140807-story.html


The deputy has since returned to active duty, though he is no longer doing patrol work. The sheriff's investigation into the Dec. 8 accident has been forwarded to the district attorney for review.

The text messages were discovered after a sheriff's detective -- unconvinced of a previous finding that cellphone use had not been a factor -- requested a search warrant for Deputy Andrew Francis Wood's phone records. The accident, he wrote in his request, had the telltale signs of distracted driving.



So there is evidence that the officer involved was also texting with his wife at the time the accident occured so how can the DA dismiss those actions which clearly have nothing to do with him performing his official duties?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:48 PM

11. Fuckin' criminal. Fuckin', fuckin' criminal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:09 PM

12. The Police Class lives by a different set of laws.

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 04:44 PM

18. Includng DA approval of making a FALSE REPORT to cover the negligent homicide!










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 05:11 PM

22. The DA said as much

"The Los Angeles District Attorney's report into the incident says that even though it is illegal to text and drive, Wood was not negligent because police officers are expected to respond quickly to messages from colleagues"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:30 PM

13. Are there ANY laws the Cops will adhere to?!?!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:35 PM

14. Being at the back of the train sucks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 04:10 PM

16. More Out Of Control American LE

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 04:30 PM

17. Story after story after story...

Every single day. This is looking more and more like anarchy. Plain ole unadulterated anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 04:47 PM

19. What a great slogan...

Trust the men in blue because the opposite is true...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 05:01 PM

20. I don't believe the official report

There is an attorney's report here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237940150/Official-document-Deputy-won-t-be-charged-in-death-of-Calabasas-bicyclist-Milton-Olin

that explains how they came to this decision. In the report, they say he was coming up on a slight curve when he momentarily took his eyes off the road, to reply to the message on the computer sitting on the passenger seat. Why in anyone's right mind would they take their eyes off the road when it starts to curve? He was looking down and never saw the curve coming...that's why. The road turned left and he continued straight forward into the bike lane, where he struck Olin.

I don't know if he said he never saw the cyclist (linked above?), because in that same report, Woods claims he looked up and the cyclist was veering into his lane, so he swerved right to avoid him and the cyclist swerved back into the bike lane and he hit him. Never touched his brakes though. If he saw him to swerve, why didn't he hit the brakes? If he swerved, why didn't the driver behind him witness it? The driver behind him could not see the cyclist (he was hidden by wood's vehicle) until he went flying in the air. The passenger (closer to the bike lane) did see him before he was hit. If they saw him, they had to see him swerve into the traffic lane. Where is their statement?

I don't believe it. I believe his eyes were off the road and he never saw the curve in the road coming up, and never saw the cyclist until he hit him. He was going a few miles over the speed limit when he hit him too.

This is all police protecting police crap and I'm getting so sick of it. Yes officer's are human and make mistakes, but they should pay for their mistakes just like the rest of us.

This is from the report:
The following timeline of the patrol vehicle's speed and the events surrounding the collision was established utilizing a combination of audio and recordings of radio transmissions for the LASD Malibu/Lost Hills Station area, as well as MDC Global Positioning Systems (GPS)) date for Wood's patrol unit:

1:04:33 speed was 44pmh, traveling northeast.
1:04:40 Unit 224T2 sent a message to Wood, "U C4 BRO."
1:04:43 speed 44MPH traveling northeast.
1:04:53 speed was 40mph traveling northeast.
1:05:03 speed was 48mph traveling northeast.
1:05 Collision occured.
1:05:13 speed was 8mph, traveling northeast.
1:05:23 speed was 0 mph.


If the above is accurate, I suspect he had his eyes "off" the road from at least 1:04:43 to 1:05. That's a hell of a long time to have your eyes off the road while driving above the speed limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:43 PM

23. We have to stop worshiping uniforms

Not everyone who wears a uniform is a hero. Some of things at play: We're overcompensating for the way GIs were treated upon returning from Vietnam. The image of uniformed personnel rushing to their deaths attempting to save victims of the attack on the World Trade Center. That and we've been intimidated by propaganda to believe that there's a threat just around every corner and the constabulary will protect us. It's far more than free donuts and coffee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #23)

Sat Aug 30, 2014, 08:13 PM

25. +1,000,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neohippie (Original post)

Sat Aug 30, 2014, 02:41 PM

24. a sad k & r! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread