Cop Gets Wrist Slapped for Killing Woman

Originally posted by KSPigpen
My point is that for some reason, he got off pretty easy. A seizure wouldn't have indicated negligence. He screwed up, killed a woman and gets a pretty damn light sentence.

Easy? People have received equal or lesser sentences for the same charge.

A "trial by judge" leaves both the verdict And sentencing in the hands and mind of one individual - the Judge.

Perhaps, in this case, the judge simply weighed all aspects of the case, the "claim" of seizure, as well as the man's service and history prior to considering an appropriate sentence. (?)

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by KSPigpen
My point is that for some reason, he got off pretty easy. A seizure wouldn't have indicated negligence. He screwed up, killed a woman and gets a pretty damn light sentence.

Easy? People have received equal or lesser sentences for the same charge.

A "trial by judge" leaves both the verdict And sentencing in the hands and mind of one individual - the Judge.

Perhaps, in this case, the judge simply weighed all aspects of the case, the "claim" of seizure, as well as the man's service and history prior to considering an appropriate sentence. (?)

Yeah...maybe so...The confusing thing for me, is that he was convicted of 'negligence.' Why not plea to lesser charges if there was something other than negligence involved? And a previous poster made a really good point that without a divers license and no career as a cop, then he's probably going to do a lot of suffering anyway.

I guess it speaks more to inconsistencies in our system that it does privileged treatment of cops...in this instance.
For Kansas, I found this:

Criminal vehicular homicide is a Class A misdemeanor in Kansas, punishable by up to 12 months in jail. Vehicular homicide is the unintentional killing of another that results from the operation of a motor vehicle “in a manner which creates an unreasonable risk of injury” and constitutes a “material deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe under the same circumstances.” The victim might be an occupant of the other car, a passenger in your car, or a pedestrian.

So maybe his sentence is right on the money. I guess the whole thing just sort of stinks. Nobody wins.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
So maybe his sentence is right on the money. I guess the whole thing just sort of stinks. Nobody wins.

... as I'm quite certain both he AND the woman's family would wholeheartedly agree.

reply to post by KSPigpen


I see nothing wrong at all with being over critical with Police. They have become a pariah on society; a parasite. I don't use them, and walk the other way. I'm no criminal, but po-lice treat everyone as criminals now.

I wanna see the medical history on this police officer, and why there was a seizure......... I don't buy it.

S&F for fighting the NWO

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


Doesn't matter if you buy it or not.

The Prosecution is suppose to argue wheather it happened or not and the defense is suppose to say it did happen.

Looks as if the defense proved it did happen and unless you are a nuero surgeon I don't think your opinion would mean a whole lot.

Well....I think everyone's opinion matters. It doesn't really matter if it jives with mine...or yours, or Santa Clause's.

Discounting an opinion based on a person's profession is really sort of silly, so I'll try really hard not to do it.

I am often VERY critical of cops. I've been trying to fix that, but it takes discussions. It takes me learning other viewpoints and being open to opinions that I may not share.

Cops aren't all bad. I think we just hear about it a lot more when they are. I did a search for 'cop hero' a minute ago and didn't find anything dated within the last three years. I know there are some out there and that's probably another thread.

My point is I welcome ANY viewpoint brought to a discussion that I started. When I close my mind, it's 'game over.'

reply to post by KSPigpen


I wouldn't get a medical opinion from a vehicle mechanic, would you?

There are a few things where our opinion wouldn't matter if it is not our line of work.

For example.

Bomb defusion
Medical diagnosis
flying an airplane

Those are off the top of my head.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

I wouldn't get a medical opinion from a vehicle mechanic, would you?

There are a few things where our opinion wouldn't matter if it is not our line of work.

For example.

Bomb defusion
Medical diagnosis
flying an airplane

Those are off the top of my head.

If the mechanic has had a boil like the one I have, he's probably a great source of information.
Bomb defusion...(wow! That guy did a great job defusing that bomb!!)
Medical diagnosis...(Hmm...well honey, maybe you should get a second opinion.)
Flying an Airplane (geez, that turbulence sucked!)

When you discount an opinion because the person giving it is 'not qualified' in YOUR opinion, then you have elevated yourself above your fellow man. I hear it gets cold, and lonely up there.

I appreciate YOUR opinion as well, JD. You keep me on my toes.

Did you have anything to discuss about the topic?

reply to post by KSPigpen


It is not my opinion the person isn't qualified. Unless they are a doctor in that paticular field of medicine then it is a fact they aren't qualified.

Someone qualified to make an educated medical opinion is someone who has been to medical school, practiced medicine legally and one who knows what they are talking about.

You can spin my examples how you want. The fact remains that unless a person is being talked through by a qualified professional I wouldn't want them to defuse a bomb, give a medical diagnosis or fly my airplane.

edit to add-

Since you asked.

Since he had a seizure that caused the accident he got what he deserved. Espeacially if he has had a history of seizures. If he had known he is prone to seizures then he got what he had coming to him. He also doesn't need to drive any longer until a qualified doctor gives him the okay to do so.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jd140]

I feel so sorry for the victim's family. Justice served is the only thing that helps with closure at least a little bit; it makes the family able to start putting the pieces of their shattered lives back together, but not for this family. The old saying ADDING INSULT TO INJURY never rang truer.

I don't know who is going to protect us from the police. I am beginning to understand the mentality that beget groups like the Hells Angels.



[edit on 24-8-2009 by Bombeni]

Originally posted by jd140
Since he had a seizure that caused the accident he got what he deserved. Espeacially if he has had a history of seizures. If he had known he is prone to seizures then he got what he had coming to him. He also doesn't need to drive any longer until a qualified doctor gives him the okay to do so.

This is what is rubbing me the wrong way. I don't see why he had it coming to him -- unless of course he had a predictable history of seizures. Negligence would come from that, such as an epileptic who goes off meds and decides to drive. Any wreck would definately be negligence. If the guy had no history or it was sparse and not expected, the raw fact that he had a seizure (hypothetical here, i don't know all the facts of the case) doesn't make him negligent.

Since you asked.

Since he had a seizure that caused the accident he got what he deserved. Espeacially if he has had a history of seizures. If he had known he is prone to seizures then he got what he had coming to him. He also doesn't need to drive any longer until a qualified doctor gives him the okay to do so.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jd140]

Thanks, JD. I appreciate your input. The whole seizure thing was brought up by another poster, or I wouldn't have even known about it. You make a good point about the possibility of willfully endangering others by not admitting to, or taking into account a pre-existing history of seizures. So, how do you feel about his sentence? Do you think it was acceptable if he KNEW he was prone to seizures?

reply to post by KSPigpen


If he knew about it, was taking meds for it, then yes I agree with the sentance.

If he knew about it, wasn't taking meds for it, then he got off with what you called a slap on the wrist.

You can build up a tolerance to meds and they become ineffective. He shouldn't be held accountable for something like that.

My two cents is that sometimes in cases like these, the knowledge that your behavior resulted in you causing someone else to lose their life is punishment enough.

He probably should have gotten something a little harsher, but I don't think jail time is really a punishment that fits the crime. That's my opinion though. I think he should at least be on house arrest for 6 months to a year on top of community service. I think that is a punishment that is way underutilized in our system.

If this were my relative, I would think house arrest would be sufficient but not probation and a fine that doesn't even go to the family, but goes to the state.

Edit to add: My reasoning is that by taking this woman's life and having to live with that fact, I'd be willing to be that if this man has a history of seizures he's going to take extra precautions such as taking meds, upping meds, or maybe not even driving so something like this doesn't happen again.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by nunya13]

Originally posted by jd140

 

If he knew about it, was taking meds for it, then yes I agree with the sentance.

Seriously? Are you saying that if you have a medical condition that is *potentially* dangerous, but you are being treated for it successfully, you should still get a fine and probation is something goes wrong and you have an accident due to said medical condition? This means that all diabetics should just give up their driver's licenses. One forgotten meal or one stressful day is all it takes to cause an incident. The same sort of thing goes for people with coronary heart disease. By this logic, if they have a heart attack whil driving and inadvertedly kill someone, they should also get fined and put on probation.

If they are willfully, or through willful omission, negligent, that is differant. If a person goes off meds for whatever reason and drives a car knowing they are a risk to others, then yeah, that is a serious offense.

Maybe I am just misunsderstanding you JD, that is possible.

[edit on 8-24-2009 by rogerstigers]

Ok screw the sentence he got and jail time, they should have just fried his ass in the chair for killing the girl. "To surve and protect." Yeah right. If he has sezures then he shouldn't be driving, his partner should.

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

Okay, I'll put this in MY perspective.

NAZI's. How many of them do any of us care about? NONE. Why, because it's the overall modern consensus that the agenda of the Nazi govt. was evil; yet every Nazi went along with it..

Today We hunt the World over for them. We don't care what condition they are in; all We are told We want is for them to PAY.

The modern day Police Officer is not a Peace Officer. they are policy enforcers of the NWO, and subject to treatment as NAZIS........

Here's a good thread on when is it time to use lethal force against the po-lice.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow Sancho. Do you think that someday, police officers will be tracked down like Nazis? do you think we will ever NOT have cops? In a case like this, I don't think that if there is any 'blame' that it all rests on the shoulders of that one cop. If he knowingly and willfully disregarded the danger posed to every other citizen on the road, then we were failed by a lot more than just that one cop.
Judges give out lenient sentences to cops. Sometimes they go the other way, but I've even read one judge's opinion that it wasn't HIS JOB to police the police.
I just think the Nazi-ism, if it exists, goes a lot higher.

reply to post by The Killah29


Did I understand correctly that you think this man should be executed in an electric chair for accidentally killing someone?

If so, you don't think that's a little overboard?