Deputy who killed former Napster COO will NOT face charges

FBrinson said:

I believe my first comment was a tongue in cheek remark about the cop bashing in this and many other threads. And it devolved into an implication that I'm a boot licker and now you want to pull me into your animal farm. No thanks. You can claim victory in our non-existent debate. I don't want to tangle with internet tough guys.

Click to expand...

So you are ommitting your comeback about a "middle ground".

If you can't back up your words so be it.

Give me a break there was no "cop bashing". The system is broke this cop is an example of that.

sudden valley gunner said:

So you are ommitting your comeback about a "middle ground".

If you can't back up your words so be it.

Give me a break there was no "cop bashing". The system is broke this cop is an example of that.

Click to expand...

Sure.

Sorry, but calling out Police Exceptionalism and double standards within the law does not equal "cop bashing."

Also, the people that refuse to accept this or that believe in Statism or Police Exceptionalism are typically called "bootlickers," since they support these rights inequalities whether on principle or through sheer ignorance or denial. Synonyms include "toady," "yes-man," and "lackey."

People who are against Police Exceptionalism, Statism, or general tyranny are typically referred to as "cop bashers," by bootlickers.

Just to clear things up.

but but but there most be some kind of compromise.....:uhoh:

FBrinson said:

I believe my first comment was a tongue in cheek remark about the cop bashing in this and many other threads. And it devolved into an implication that I'm a boot licker and now you want to pull me into your animal farm. No thanks. You can claim victory in our non-existent debate. I don't want to tangle with internet tough guys.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing.
When someone says "All the pigs should be shot" or "The police just want to hassle people" it's bashing.
When someone says "Officer Woods appears to have gotten away with killing a cyclist" or "Kelly Thomas beaten to death by police" or "Police open fire on innocent civilians in Christopher Dorner 'mistaken identity' pursuit." or "Ohio officer Daniel Harless threatens to shoot citizen" or "Ferguson, MO officer points automatic weapon at protestors" or even "Police shove woman headfirst onto concrete jail surface" it becomes a specific and identifiable incident and isn't "bashing" unless one redefines the term to mean any and all criticism of a specific group.

It would be indefensible if anyone outside of law enforcement committed those heinous acts, we only want the heinous conduct of officers to be held to the same account as everyone else. No group should be 'more equal than' any other.

You want to say we're "bashing"? Okay, convince me; show me instances where the police have been held to the same standard as us mere peons.

sudden valley gunner said:

Give me a break there was no "cop bashing".

Click to expand...

hey. don't discount my efforts!

Lighten' up, Francis'

Fallschirmjäger said:

Here's the thing.
When someone says "All the pigs should be shot" or "The police just want to hassle people" it's bashing.
When someone says "Officer Woods appears to have gotten away with killing a cyclist" or "Kelly Thomas beaten to death by police" or "Police open fire on innocent civilians in Christopher Dorner 'mistaken identity' pursuit." or "Ohio officer Daniel Harless threatens to shoot citizen" or "Ferguson, MO officer points automatic weapon at protestors" or even "Police shove woman headfirst onto concrete jail surface" it becomes a specific and identifiable incident and isn't "bashing" unless one redefines the term to mean any and all criticism of a specific group.

--snipped--

Click to expand...

Quite accurate.

A specific incidence of officer misconduct is not bashing.

Generalizations, remarks appearing to be all inclusive are - that being a serious infraction of the Forum Rules.

Additionally consider that a campaign of constantly seeking out and reporting a litany of such, could well be considered bashing.

marshaul said:

If "using electronic devices" while driving is part of the duties of a police officer, we ought to adjust their job description.

Click to expand...

I don't think that the legislature meant to exempt cops who run over people through their negligent driving .. its just the prosecutor did not want to argue this point. Why? Because they are one big happy Federation !

So, a cop can drive though a school playground and kill 20 kids by running them over and be exempt from justice ?

If it was 20 kids that got killed, this prosecutor would have done his job but it wasn't, it was just an old lawyer..so who cares.

davidmcbeth said:

i don't think that the legislature meant to exempt cops who run over people through their negligent driving .. Its just the prosecutor did not want to argue this point. Why? Because they are one big happy federation !

So, a cop can drive though a school playground and kill 20 kids by running them over and be exempt from justice ?

If it was 20 kids that got killed, this prosecutor would have done his job but it wasn't, it was just an old lawyer..so who cares.

Click to expand...

exactly!!!!

“Witnesses who were in a vehicle directly behind Deputy Wood’s radio car at the time of the collision told investigators that the radio car failed to negotiate the left curve in the roadway and proceeded straight into the bicycle lane,” sheriff’s Detective Russell A. Townsley wrote in the affidavit, according to the Daily News. “The witness also stated that they did not see any brake lights on the radio car until after they saw Mr. Olin’s body in the air.”

http://www.change.org/p/l-a-county-...-causing-the-death-of-attorney-milton-olin-jr

Click to expand...

Wood was taken to a hospital for treatment of cuts and bruises.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...apster-Exec-Was-Texting-Report-267084511.html

Click to expand...

Well, there ya go, he has suffered enough, no?

This smells of a 'setup'; sure the officer was authorized to use 'wireless electronic communications' devices while performing his duty. But WHY is that the only charge?

If you or I, or any other 'non-special' person did this do you think there might be a charge of 'failure to maintain lane' or something similar?

He was charged with something the district attorney could reasonably not prosecute for, but not charged with the obvious cause of the accident.

CVC 21658 Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

but but but there most be some kind of compromise.....:uhoh:

Click to expand...

NO.....You will respect my authority.