We Killed Your Daughter; You're Under Arrest

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The blame is all on the law enforcement.

He is the killer here. And he didnt get arrested.

Bias much.

You do understand that had it been a civilian driving, the exact same thing would occur? Being we are dealing with felonies, if a person is arrested then the PA has 24-48 hours to file the charges. Thats not enough time for the medical examiner to determine the official cause of death, let alone any other processing of evidence.

Did the officer break the law? Yup
Did the 2 people killed break the law? Yup
Did the family members who showed up break the law? Yup

Its not a hard concept to understand, provided you and others can open your eyes and minds longer than the 2 seconds it takes you to lay 100% of the blame on law enforcement. If you and the others are so concerned about the law being followed, then why are you so intent on ignoring it?

reply to post by Xcathdra


I am concerned in following it. Thats why all I am worried about is locking this killer up.

Throw the dad in jail too while your at it, Im sure his 3 day vacation in jail will be nothing to him seeing as how he had just lost his kid to a pig.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Did the officer break the law? Yup
Did the 2 people killed break the law? Yup
Did the family members who showed up break the law? Yup

Its not a hard concept to understand,

Exactly. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Out all three groups you stated up there only the police officer gets to walk away. I wonder why?

BTW, tested for what you ask?

Please don't be misleading, lying and start acting like all other retard cops. Thanks.

Had I run down 2 pedestrians while speeding, I would have to take drug and alcohol tests at the scene. This POS pig did not have to.

THAT is preferential treatment right there and if you can't see it, then you are either biased or retarded. My vote is both.

reply to post by HandyDandy


You really should learn what the hell you are talking about before opening your mouth. A person cannot be forced to take a sobriety or drug test. So I ask you again, tested for what?

The family could have walked away when they were told to do so the first time. Instead they opted to ignore those orders and decided to tamper with a crime scene. Had the family members who assaulted the officers not assaulted them, then they would have walked away as well.

You really need to quit your anti police bias.. Its just sad watching you to try and lay 100% of the blame on the police. Had they used a legal crosswalk, and not illegally crossed where there was not one, maybe they would not have been hit by the officer? While you disdain law enforcement, they are not 100% responsible for this mess.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You really should learn what the hell you are talking about before opening your mouth. A person cannot be forced to take a sobriety or drug test. So I ask you again, tested for what?

So you are telling me the officer lost his license for refusing any testing? If not, again, preferential treatment.

The family could have walked away when they were told to do so the first time. Instead they opted to ignore those orders and decided to tamper with a crime scene. Had the family members who assaulted the officers not assaulted them, then they would have walked away as well.

I would have assaulted them too and I hope the family still does.

For not testing or arresting the officer on scene. You yourself said that the officer broke the law. But, I guess you don't get arrested when you break the law if you are an officer. And yes, reckless endangerment is an arrestable offense.

You really need to quit your anti police bias.. Its just sad watching you to try and lay 100% of the blame on the police. Had they used a legal crosswalk, and not illegally crossed where there was not one, maybe they would not have been hit by the officer? While you disdain law enforcement, they are not 100% responsible for this mess.

Ah..so it is the victim's fault who jaywalked (a minor offense according to law....so minor that most cops IGNORE it) over the officer (who recklessly endangered the public....a major misdemeanor and jailable in most states....and involuntary manslaughter) who was speading with no warning for those in front of him?

And you have the gaul to call me biased?

It is attitudes like yours that have given me reason to hate the LEOs out there. Not to mention stories of this nature. What's your excuse?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
So you are telling me the officer lost his license for refusing any testing? If not, again, preferential treatment.

Ask the California Highway Patrol - They were responsible for the investigation.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
I would have assaulted them too and I hope the family still does.

Your an idiot to say the least and have no idea what your talking about.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
For not testing or arresting the officer on scene. You yourself said that the officer broke the law. But, I guess you don't get arrested when you break the law if you are an officer. And yes, reckless endangerment is an arrestable offense.

For speeding but way to once again latch on to only the words you want and spin them to your side in hopes it lends your argument credibility, which it does not.

An accident resulting in death is going to be a felony. If the officer, or any other person in that position, were arrested, the PA attorney only has 24-48 hours to file charges before they are legally required to release the person from jail. Since it takes longer than 24-48 hours to determine cause of death and toxicology, not to mention a reconstruction of the accident, which is required, there is no reason to arrest the person, since they will be released because they cant get all of the above done in 24-48 hours.

What part of this do you not understand? Let me know and I will explain it slower so you can possibly understand it without going over the same idiot ass argument time and again from you.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Ah..so it is the victim's fault who jaywalked (a minor offense according to law....so minor that most cops IGNORE it) over the officer (who recklessly endangered the public....a major misdemeanor and jailable in most states....and involuntary manslaughter) who was speading with no warning for those in front of him?

Speeding is also a minor traffic offense to, except apparently when it involves an officer. What part of breaking the law and mitigating circumstance are you not familiar with?

Lets try this again -
Did the officer break the law? Yes
Did the 2 people who were killed break the law? Yes
Did the family break the law? Yes

Any reason only 2 out of the 3 listed only concern you? Gee, I wonder why?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
And you have the gaul to call me biased?

Absolutely I do and absolutely you are. If you weren't you wouldn't continually argue the officer broke the law while ignoring and then trying to justify the law violations by the other parties involved.

That means you are biased...

Originally posted by HandyDandy
It is attitudes like yours that have given me reason to hate the LEOs out there. Not to mention stories of this nature. What's your excuse?

No its not.. Its people like you who hate law enforcement who will do what and say whatever you can to blame them for anything and everything, regardless of other factors.

As an example if we compare our 2 arguments, I have maintained from the git go the officer is responsible, while also pointing out the contributing factors, which would be the illegal manner they crossed the street and why the family members were arrested.

You on the other hand only want to blame the police, demand the law be followed, while then arguing in favor of the family breaking the law to assault an officer.

The best thing you can do right now is to sit down and shut up and quit embarrassing yourself, since you have completely undermined your position and made it very obvious you are biased and have no desire to find the truth, only to blame the officer.

But hey you seem intent on making yourself out to be a fool, so dont let me stop you.. Carry on.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
For speeding but way to once again latch on to only the words you want and spin them to your side in hopes it lends your argument credibility, which it does not.

An accident resulting in death is going to be a felony. If the officer, or any other person in that position, were arrested, the PA attorney only has 24-48 hours to file charges before they are legally required to release the person from jail. Since it takes longer than 24-48 hours to determine cause of death and toxicology, not to mention a reconstruction of the accident, which is required, there is no reason to arrest the person, since they will be released because they cant get all of the above done in 24-48 hours.

What part of this do you not understand? Let me know and I will explain it slower so you can possibly understand it without going over the same idiot ass argument time and again from you.

I call BullSh*t to your drivel.

CROWN HEIGHTS (WABC) -- A man is under arrest in Brooklyn after a crash that killed another driver and injured two others.

Police say 29-year-old Jermaine Filmore ran a red light on Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights, slammed into a 2003 Chevy SUV, and then broadsided a 2003 Lincoln Towncar and finally smashed head-on into a 2007 Mitsubishi sedan.

A security guard saw the accident and pulled a 51-year-old driver from the burning vehicle. That driver died from his injuries a short time later.

A 30-year-old man driving the SUV and the 26-year-old woman behind the wheel of the sedan were taken to Kings County Hospital where they were listed in stable condition.

Filmore was arrested on multiple charges including criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving.

Names of the victims have not been released.

abclocal.go.com.../local/new_york&id=8492813

Let's read that again.

Filmore was arrested on multiple charges including criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving.


So, what's the difference between this man and the cop? All he did was run a red light right?

Why wasn't he arrested after the 24-48 hour wait time like you state is standard procedure? Please tell us the legalize to worm out of that question.

reply to post by HandyDandy


Maybe you should learn how the laws work as well as understand the fact that California is not New York. They are 2 separate states and have differing laws regarding these incidents. Citing an example from New York means absolutely nothing to the situation in California.

What else do you have that I can shoot down?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Maybe you should learn how the laws work as well as understand the fact that California is not New York.

Well golly gee........read further.

What else do you have that I can shoot down?

Shoot this down.

Paso Robles, CA -- A Paso Robles man was arrested for vehicular homicide with gross negligence after a fatal crash near San Simeon late yesterday afternoon. Investigators say the crash happened when the driver of a truck, 55-year-old Jeffrey LaChance, attempted to pass a tour bus.

According to the CHP, LaChance was driving northbound, when he clipped the left side of the bus. LaChance's truck slammed head on into a sedan going southbound. The female passenger in the sedan was from Pennsylvania. She died at the scene. The driver of the sedan, also from Pennsylvania, is in a coma at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center.

The CHP says everyone was wearing their seatbelts and airbags were deployed. Investigators have ruled out alcohol has a factor in the crash. LaChance is currently in San Luis Obispo County Jail on $100,000 bail.

920kvec.com...

But, I'm waiting for "But...but...that is not the same county" next.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

You really should learn what the hell you are talking about before opening your mouth. A person cannot be forced to take a sobriety or drug test.

Complete LIE. Why do you want to be known as a liar on here?

In any traffic accident resulting in injuries or fatalities, the investigating officers will take a breath or blood test of the driver whom they believe to be at fault. In situations where the driver is taken to a hospital, the officers travel to the hospital to interview the subject and obtain a blood sample, which is taken by a phlebotomist. I have seen cases where the suspect driver was severely injured wherein the officers appeared to view the gathering of incriminating information about the injured driver as a higher priority than the medical treatment of the driver. We had one case where the driver complained of severe back pain, and was later diagnosed with a compression fracture of a vertebra, yet the officers took him to the station instead of the hospital, where they held him down and did a forced blood draw. An emergency room doctor told me that although medical staff cooperates with the officers as much as possible, there are occasions when they have to direct an overly aggressive officer not to interfere with urgent treatment of a driver suspected of felony DUI. When defending these cases, attorneys should take a close look at the circumstances of the interview of the defendant driver, as well as the chemical testing process, which is almost always a blood draw. Upon careful evaluation, the attorney may find a basis for a motion to suppress the statement and/or the blood results. You evaluate whether the facts as set forth by the arresting officer are sufficient to provide probable cause of an arrest and taking of a blood sample and in some cases you may find an independent witness who disagrees with the version of the arresting officer.

www.grimesandwarwick.com...

Can refuse these tests my ass.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Complete LIE. Why do you want to be known as a liar on here?

Actually its not, being if you force a person to provide a breath / blood / urine sample, it cant be used in court since the evidence was obtained illegally = fruit of the poisonous tree.

So no, Its not a lie, however it does show your ignorance. A person can not be forced to take a breath / urine / blood test. Instead of calling me a liar, how about you read up on the term called implied consent, which explains what happens when you refuse to take the test. It also explains that the only way a sample can be forced is if the driver is unconscious.

Those standards are the EXACT same across the United States and are in compliance with Supreme Court rulings. The Field sobriety tests we use are established by NHTSA and are codified and supported with case law and the US Supreme Court rulings.

Exactly what part of "not forced to turn evidence over against ones self - IE 5th Amendment", do you not understand?

Also, as with all other criminal actions, the officer must have reasonable suspicion a crime occurred. Through investigation, they will either build their case, raising it to probable cause, or not find anything. Aside from breath / blood / urine tests, we also document a persons actions . movements / physical descriptors (slurred speech, eyes, motor skills, ability to multi task etc), etc. The HGN test is by far the best test. There are 6 clues total, 3 in each eye. If all 3 clues in each eye are present, there is an 80% or better chance the individual is over .08 bac.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Can refuse these tests my ass.

1- A person can refuse to take a breath / blood / urine test.
The result of that refusal is a charge of DWI along with any other violation that occurred during the encounter. The person will lose their license, first offense, for a year (this is administrative).

2 - They can legally refuse to take a portable breath test at road side because -
A - Its not considered a calibrated instrument
B - Results are not admissible in court

If I am investigating a DWI traffic stop or an a DWI accident with fatality, the person cannot be forced to provide blood, breath or urine samples. Again the ONLY exception to that is if the driver is unconscious.

Here is an AIR form Page 2 - Implied consent
You will notice we are required to read a checklist, explaining what we are doing. The last question on that check list is will you take the test?

There is a box for Yes and one for No. Once the person says no, we cannot force the sample collection.



At what point are you going to give up this futile effort to explain the law to me? As I stated I do this for a living, which makes it all that more humorous with your perceived "gotcha" rebuttals., I know what my state laws are as well as national case law that affects my states laws. I also know DWI standards are uniform across the country, especially when it comes to obtaining samples.

If you want to debate, thats fine. Respectfully though you really should learn before opening your mouth. To date every argument you have made is based on inaccuracies, ignorance of law, case law and constitutional law.

Your attempt to continue to try and lay all the blame on the officer in this case is sad. Your argument to punish the officer yet ignore any other law violations when committed by anyone but law enforcement, reinforce my belief that you are extremely biased against law enforcement. You are allowing your personal feelings to cloud the facts.. Based on your responses I really suggest you go back and demand a refund from the schools you attended.

What else can I prove you wrong on?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually its not, being if you force a person to provide a breath / blood / urine sample, it cant be used in court since the evidence was obtained illegally = fruit of the poisonous tree.

Well, well...cops acting illegally. never heard that before.

So no, Its not a lie, however it does show your ignorance. A person can not be forced to take a breath / urine / blood test.

So, you instead are calling the lawyer on his website a liar. Since he deals with the law also on a daily basis (much more specialized than you do I might add) I'd take his word over a cop any day.

I think I may contact this lawyer and let him know that he is being libelled here by you and ATS as the publisher. I bet he could make a mint.

Exactly what part of "not forced to turn evidence over against ones self - IE 5th Amendment", do you not understand?

Well then you are calling the lawyer a liar. Not me. Got it? If not now, once I explain that he is being libelled on here, I'm sure you'll get it then.

At what point are you going to give up this futile effort to explain the law to me? As I stated I do this for a living

And yet, I've met a many cop who knows little of the law he is suppossed to uphold. Are you one of them?

Your attempt to continue to try and lay all the blame on the officer in this case is sad.

If the cop had not been speeding with lights off (including headlights at dusk) then the accident should not have occurred. So, yes, I put all the blame on the cop.

Had the roles been reversed, you'd be blaming the driver also, just in this case it happens to be a cop, so you dance around everyone but the cop for blame. THAT is what is sad.

Your argument to punish the officer yet ignore any other law violations when committed by anyone but law enforcement, reinforce my belief that you are extremely biased against law enforcement.

No, my argument to punish the officer for his crimes is not biased. What is biased is your refusal to put ANY blame on the officer and to go so far as to say that they were jaywalking when it states in the article that they were crossing at an intersection. SAD. Really SAD.

You are allowing your personal feelings to cloud the facts.. Based on your responses I really suggest you go back and demand a refund from the schools you attended.

I can garantee I have much more brain power than you as my IQ is far above the cut off point. Being an officer, I would be embarrassed knowing that my IQ is less than 120.

What else can I prove you wrong on?

Nothing...... but be prepared for the wrath of a lawyer. This should be fun to watch.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Well, well...cops acting illegally. never heard that before.

I see once again your inability to read led you to a wrong conclusion. You need to work on that.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
So, you instead are calling the lawyer on his website a liar. Since he deals with the law also on a daily basis (much more specialized than you do I might add) I'd take his word over a cop any day.

And thats your problem not mine. Police cannot force a person to take a breath / blood or urine test. If you ever decide to learn to read and comprehend, you would see the part you quoted says absolutely nothing about forcing a person to take the tests.

The reason for that is because its illegal. Going back to that whole pesky 5th amendment thing.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
I think I may contact this lawyer and let him know that he is being libelled here by you and ATS as the publisher. I bet he could make a mint.

Feel free to.. Let me know how long he laughs at you for. While your at it you should take some time to learn the law, because to date you are so lost its not so much funny, but hilarious.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Well then you are calling the lawyer a liar. Not me. Got it? If not now, once I explain that he is being libelled on here, I'm sure you'll get it then.

Not at all.. Although any lawyer who advocates that a person does not have a right to exercise their 5th amendment doesn't belong in the bar. However, since you are so frigging hardheaded it doesn't matter what anyone says because you will continue to believe, incorrectly, what you want so long as it places law enforcement in a bad light.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
And yet, I've met a many cop who knows little of the law he is suppossed to uphold. Are you one of them?

I uphold the law in a fair manner, believing that a good ass chewing and explanation can go a lot farther than scratching out 4 tickets and taking a person to jail. I am very familiar with the laws I enforce, which would be the ones you have no clue about. Since you have no concept of laws, government or how they work Ill stop here so you dont get any more confused than you are now.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
If the cop had not been speeding with lights off (including headlights at dusk) then the accident should not have occurred. So, yes, I put all the blame on the cop.

There was no reason for him to be running code since the response was not life endangerment. As I stated, I hold the officer responsible for his actions, where as you only blame him, again because of your ignorance of the law and anti police attitude. The 2 people killed were illegally crossing the road, and failed to yield the right of way to traffic, IE the officer. The family members who were arrested deserved it. Had they been allowed to continue scewing around with the scene, which is a crime scene btw but I dont expect you to know or understand what that is, is actually tampering with evidence. That means if the police allowed them to do that, the evidence collected can be challenged in court as tainted and as a result, thrown out. If that happens the cop could get off on a technicality, but again, with your ignorance and blind hatred I dont expect you to understand that.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Had the roles been reversed, you'd be blaming the driver also, just in this case it happens to be a cop, so you dance around everyone but the cop for blame. THAT is what is sad.

and you woul;d be a liar, as well as reinforcing what I said about your blind hatred. Not once have I excused the cops. I just dont lay 100 percent of the blame on them like you do. The reason for that is I know the law and you dont.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
No, my argument to punish the officer for his crimes is not biased. What is biased is your refusal to put ANY blame on the officer and to go so far as to say that they were jaywalking when it states in the article that they were crossing at an intersection. SAD. Really SAD.

Yet your argument to date revolves around the officer only while ignoring, and then advocating, illegal actions against the police. By advocating I am referring to you suggesting they should have been beat by the people on scene who lost there relatives in the accident.

Again if you would learn how to read and actually understand what you read, you would see I hold the officer accountable for his action. Since I know the law and you don't, I understand the term called mitigating circumstance, which in this case is when 2 people illegally crossed the road and failed to yield to vehicular traffic. The family members who decided to storm the crime scene should have backed off. When they decided they wanted to compromise a crime scene and potentially taint evidence, they deserved to be arrested and booked into jail.

I can only hear your screams now if they allowed the family to destroy the crime scene and all charges against the officer be tossed. Amazing that the very officers you hate are the ones who are allowing the family to have all the evidence they need both in criminal and civil lawsuits against the officer and department.

Again though your level of ignorance and blind hatred is so bad you dont even see it.

Thats sad...

Originally posted by HandyDandy
I can garantee I have much more brain power than you as my IQ is far above the cut off point. Being an officer, I would be embarrassed knowing that my IQ is less than 120.

Oh so your one of those people who is only smart when behind a computer. I could care less what you claim your IQ to be because to date, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Nothing...... but be prepared for the wrath of a lawyer. This should be fun to watch.

I wont hold my breath.. As I said, you really need to learn the law and how it works before throwing baseless threats around on the internet.

You sir are pathetic... When you dont get your way you threaten people with legal action? Ive made my argument and went into detail on the law, yet you continue to ignorantly ignore it, constantly changing your point of attack. Each time your argument gets shot down, you lob personal insults and threats while leveling yet another round of baseless accusations.

When you call the lawyer to whine about being schooled and proven wrong, ask him how you can sue your places of education to get a refund on the lacking education you received.

Now that I have shot your arguments down.....again.... what else can I prove you wrong about?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The 2 people killed were illegally crossing the road, and failed to yield the right of way to traffic, IE the officer.

Please tell me how crossing a "widely known intersection" is against the law?

At least in my state the pedestrian has the right of way. Especially against a speeding car with no lights or sirens to warn them of the on coming slaughter about to happen.

The fact you keep saying that the couple was crossing illegally to place some of the blame on them is what shows your biasness.

The family members who were arrested deserved it. Had they been allowed to continue scewing around with the scene, which is a crime scene btw but I dont expect you to know or understand what that is,

I understand fully what you are talking about a crime scene and the need to preserve it. My contention is and has alsways been that the officer should have been arrested and tested (or if refused to lose his license like every other person in this nation) when they are involved in an accident that kills people when they are speeding through an intersection at dusk with their lights off. If that is not procedure, then explain the ones I found where people WERE arrested.

Also, my contention is and has always been that the family was not arrested for being on-scene, they were arrested when they saw that nothing was beeing done to the person that killed their family just because he was buddy buddies. And I still state that I would have assaulted the officers too....because THEY deserved it for not following procedure.


The rest is just you telling me I'm an idiot. Cop meet kettle.

BTW...I could give a rat's ass of your legaleze.

It was once legal in this great nation to:

Own a person...more than one if you could afford it.
Rape a person that you own.
Kill a person that you own.

Shall I continue on laws? You can shove em where the sun don't shine. I'll take morals over laws any day. And it was morally right to at least get the officer off scene.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please tell me how crossing a "widely known intersection" is against the law?

The area they crossed contained no cross walk, meaning they are required to yield the right of way to vehicles. The legal term your looking for is called j-walking.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
At least in my state the pedestrian has the right of way. Especially against a speeding car with no lights or sirens to warn them of the on coming slaughter about to happen.

A pedestrian has the right of way in a crosswalk and when the lights is in their favor. Its no different than a car cued up to make a left hand turn. So long as they are in the middle of the intersection, it doesn't matter what color the light is for cross traffic. Cross traffic must wait for the intersection to clear before proceeding on their light.

You look both ways before crossing the road, even at crosswalks, to ensure there are no cars coming. The same standard applies when illegally crossing a street. The fact there is no cross walk places the burden on the pedestrian, not the vehicle.

Hence mitigating circumstance. How far in advance were the 2 people in front of the police car? How was was the police car officially, not guessing but officially, going? The info we have is from witnesses and the speed was a guess on their part. Hence the reason for an accident reconstruction. Hence the reason for keeping people away from the scene and the bodies. Damage to the bodies can give valuable information when it comes to speed at time of impact, were they attempting to get out of the way or did the car just plow into them etc etc etc.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
The fact you keep saying that the couple was crossing illegally to place some of the blame on them is what shows your biasness.

Not at all.. It has everything to do with knowing the law and how to conduct a valid investigation that looks at all the facts, and not just the ones people who are jaded want to see. I have maintained from the start the officer is culpable, yet you continue to accuse me of everything but. The fact you refuse to look at the information provided for conducting an investigation shows your bias, not mine.

The goal of an investigation is to determine the truth, regardless of where that truth leads us.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
I understand fully what you are talking about a crime scene and the need to preserve it. My contention is and has alsways been that the officer should have been arrested and tested like every other person in this nation when they are involved in an accident that kills people when they are speeding through an intersection at dusk with their lights off. If that is not procedure, then explain the ones I found where people WERE arrested.

I have explained them to you - they are from other states and differing circumstances. The prosecuting attorney is not going to file charges if the evidence is not present. They will wait till they get everything back from the crime lab, accident reconstruction etc.

Making an arrest immediately with none of the evidence available means the person arrested will be released after 24-48 hours from time of arrest. Thats the amount of time the PA has to file charges, which is one of the reasons its generally not done when fatalities are present unless their is evidence that is clear cut and stands on its own. In this case, the evidence is not clear cut.

They dont know officially how fast the deputy was going.
What was the road condition?
What was the weather condition?
What was the lighting condition?
What were the 2 people killed wearing?
Where did they cross the street?
How far in advance were they in front of the deputy?
What else was the deputy doing while driving? - working his computer, cell phone, speaking to dispatch?
etc etc etc etc...

All questions that need to be asked and answered in this case. Some states have modifiers that tag onto their criminal statutes. If you are driving down the road and hit and kill someone, a a violation of a law. If its determined the person was on their cell phone, distracted from doing something else in the car other than paying attention, then you can have a punishment modifier added on to the original charge.

Do you hate the police so much that you want to rush them to judgment instead of taking the time to get all the info and apply charges that are equal to the crime?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Also, my contention is and has always been that the family was not arrested for being on-scene, they were arrested when they saw that nothing was beeing done to the person that killed their family just because he was buddy buddies. And I still state that I would have assaulted the officers too....because THEY deserved it for not following procedure.

Which again is not their concern. Secondly according to the information they were arrested because they refused verbal commands to leave the immediate area and instead assaulted the officers present. They were walking around the crash scene, upset at what they saw. They were on scene before medical even made it to the scene. I get they were distraught, however there is nothing that could have been done to save the 2 people hit by the car.

When medical needs are no longer required, it moves into investigation and securing the scene. The family members were arrested for assault on an officer when they refused commands to leave and then resisted when they were being forced out of the area.

With their mental status it was probably for the best they were taken to jail. How do you think they would feel if they were allowed to tamper with the crime scene only to find out the officer cant be charged with a crime because of their actions at the crime scene?

It is not the family's place to dictate how an investigation goes. The deputies first on scene were not in any position either since it dealt with one of their own. That is the reason Highway Patrol was called in to run the investigation - something ignored by you and the family.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
The rest is just you telling me I'm an idiot. Cop meet kettle.

If you take the time to read your responses you will see that I am right. You dont know the law, you have no concept of crime scene investigation, you dont understand that the laws of the State of New York are not the same as those of California, you have no concept of due process or constitutional rights and you want to accuse me of calling a lawyer a liar, which was your words not mine, while ignoring the laws ive posted that deal with the situation.

So yes, based on your arguments and comment, I was calling you an idiot, just as you called me biased and a liar.

I am guessing that since I do law enforcement and you dont, the double standard you apply makes it ok for you to call me a liar but I cant call you an idiot?

Ironic.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
BTW...I could give a rat's ass of your legalize.

Hence the reason I called you an idiot. You ignore anything you dont like that doesn't fit your argument. I would also wager, based on your attitude, that its also because I do law enforcement, and since you hate all cops, you refuse to listen to them.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
It was once legal in this great nation to:

Own a person...more than one if you could afford it.
Rape a person that you own.
Kill a person that you own.

All of which were corrected by Constitutional amendments, as well as case law and investigations based on the part of law enforcement. If you knew how the government worked then you would know the laws you are referring to were passed by the people, not the police. If you dont like a law, dont blame the police. Instead get off your ass and participate in the system and have the law repealed.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Shall I continue on laws? You can shove em where the sun don't shine. I'll take morals over laws any day. And it was morally right to at least get the officer off scene.

edit on 25-1-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

Thats the problem... You dont care to hear anything that proves you wrong, and even more so when it comes from law enforcement. You are biased to the point of blind hatred, and its evident in your posts and your inability to stick to one topic / argument. Anytime I shoot one down, you shift to something else that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

By all means though prove me wrong and link your list on owning, raping etc and explain how it is relevant to this situation?

Again, respectfully, learn the law before opening your mouth. It will be less embarrassing for you. Unless your intent on showing off your "high IQ" which apparently came as the prize in a cracker jack box?

reply to post by Xcathdra


I would learn the law myself before I started to call others an idiot for not knowing it.

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks



According to California driving laws, pedestrians have the right-of-way at all crosswalks if there is any confusion among the driver and pedestrian. While some crosswalks are marked with white lines -- or yellow lines in school areas -- and have lights to indicate when walking is permissible, many crosswalks are not marked with any lines or lights, so drivers must be aware that at all crosswalks -- marked or unmarked -- pedestrians legally have the right-of-way.

www.ehow.com...

That took about 2 seconds to find.

Notice it says at any intersection marked or not? With crossing lights or not.

And before I get back that an intersection is not a crosswalk....I post the law for you to read.

275. "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

www.legal-news-california.tozerlaw.com...

So, your whole argument that they were jaywalking is moot. They had the right of way.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
I would learn the law myself before I started to call others an idiot for not knowing it.

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

www.ehow.com...

That took about 2 seconds to find.

Again please learn to read. The 2 people hit by the deputy weren't in a cross walk. The nearest cross walk was like 2 or 3 blocks down the road. They crossed the street where no cross walk was present. They illegally crossed the street.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Notice it says at any intersection marked or not? With crossing lights or not.

Notice how the article states they crossed where no cross walk was present / valid?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
And before I get back that an intersection is not a crosswalk....I post the law for you to read.

275. "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

www.legal-news-california.tozerlaw.com...

All fine and dandy however the 2 did not cross at an intersection nor did they cross in a cross walk. Once again your arguments get shot down, so you try another angle to try and prove you are right, which you are not.

Let me help since you still dont get it - There is a difference between a law establishing what a cross walk is, and a law estabishing how a pedestrian crosses the street - legally or illegally. You domt seem to grasp the separate issues.
J-Walking - California

21954(a) CVC – Pedestrians Outside Crosswalk - Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

The last part is valid, however the part I highlighted creates the mitigating circumstance to take into account for the accident itself and the lat part of the California statute. Is there more?

....wait for it....

21955 CVC – Crossing Between Controlled Intersections - Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
So, your whole argument that they were jaywalking is moot. They had the right of way.

No really they didn't. Read the above and learn.

Also -

21961. Local Authorities may establish more restrictive pedestrian laws - This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks.

What else can I school and prove you wrong on? Keep em coming please.. I enjoy this.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again please learn to read. The 2 people hit by the deputy weren't in a cross walk. The nearest cross walk was like 2 or 3 blocks down the road. They crossed the street where no cross walk was present. They illegally crossed the street.

Before telling others to learn to read and calling them idiots, I would learn the law myself. Just a suggestion.

Notice how the article states they crossed where no cross walk was present / valid?

Still think you know the law?

275. "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

www.legal-news-california.tozerlaw.com...

Also, from the report.

The pair was crossing a street at a widely-recognized intersection

Crossing at an intersection is crossing at a crosswalk. Whether you say it is or not. Look up the law since you think you know it so much.

All fine and dandy however the 2 did not cross at an intersection

Ignore any thing much?

Again…..

The pair was crossing a street at a widely-recognized intersection

But you still want to say they are in the wrong. Please.

Let me help since you still dont get it - There is a difference between a law establishing what a cross walk is, and a law estabishing how a pedestrian crosses the street - legally or illegally. You domt seem to grasp the separate issues.

Really?

J-Walking - California

21954(a) CVC – Pedestrians Outside Crosswalk - Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

Notice it says UNMARKED CROSSWALK AT AN INTERSECTION?

And you call me an idiot?

21955 CVC – Crossing Between Controlled Intersections - Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

They crossed at an intersection which is considered a crosswalk by law…marked or unmarked…therefore your last point is moot.

21961. Local Authorities may establish more restrictive pedestrian laws - This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks.

Again, they DID cross at an unmarked intersection which is considered a crosswalk.

What else can I school and prove you wrong on? Keep em coming please.. I enjoy this.

I enjoy it also because I’m showing a police officer wrong because he doesn’t know or is ignoring the fact that an unmarked intersection is considered a crosswalk.

Crosswalks

A crosswalk is the part of the roadway set aside for pedestrian traffic. Most intersections have a pedestrian crosswalk whether or not lines are painted on the street. Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. Before turning a corner, watch for people about to cross the street. Pedestrians have the right-of-way in markes or unmarked crosswalks.

Crosswalks are often marked with white lines. Yellow crosswalk lines may be painted at school crossings. Most often, crosswalks in residential areas are not marked.

Some crosswalks have flashing lights to warn you that pedestrians may be crossing. Look for pedestrians and be prepared to stop, whether or not the lights are flashing.

Intersections

An intersection is any place where one line of roadway meets another roadway. Intersections include cross streets, side streets, alleys, freeway entrances, and any other location where vehicles traveling on different highways or roads join each other.

Driving through an intersection is one of the most complex traffic situations motorists encounter. Intersection collisions account for more than 45 percent of all reported crashes and 21 percent of fatalities according to the Federal Highway Administration.
•At intersections without "STOP" or "YIELD" signs, slow down and be ready to stop. Yield to traffic and pedestrians already in the intersection or just entering the intersection. Also, yield to the vehicle or bicycle that arrives first, or to the vehicle or bicycle on your right if it reaches the intersection at the same time as you.
•At "T" intersections without "STOP" or "YIELD" signs, yield to traffic and pedestrians on the through road. They have the right-of-way.
•When you turn left, give the rightof- way to all vehicles approaching that are close enough to be dangerous. Also, look for motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Safety suggestion: While waiting to turn left, keep your wheels pointed straight ahead until it is safe to start your turn. If your wheels are pointed to the left, and a vehicle hits you from behind, you could be pushed into oncoming traffic.
•When you turn right, be sure to check for pedestrians crossing the street and bicyclists coming up behind you on the right.
•On divided highways or highways with several lanes, watch for ve-hicles coming in any lane you cross. Turn either left or right only when it is safe.
•When there are "STOP" signs at all corners, stop first then follow the rules listed above.
•If you have parked off the road or are leaving a parking lot, etc., yield to traffic before reentering the road.

dmv.ca.gov...

reply to post by HandyDandy


Yup thats the DMV definition of crosswalks.

The info I gave you is the California state law on j-walking and how it works. As I said before, they are separate issues.

What part of this -

21961. Local Authorities may establish more restrictive pedestrian laws - This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks.

do you not understand or comprehend?

The info I gave also pointed out that political sub entities can create more strict laws concerning crossing the street and the manner its done in.

As I said, learn the law and how it works before spouting off. Its evident you are not understanding how this works, and to date Ive given you not only answer and explanations, but the places to look up the info and yet here we are.

Now your resorting to just posting definitions and nothing else.

Your argument is flawed because it ignores the law.
Your position on laying the blame on the officer only is flawed because it ignores the law.
Your argument that the officer should be arrested is flawed because it ignores law.
Your argument that people dont have a right to refuse breath / blood / urine samples is flawed because you dont understand the law or constitutional rights.

You can only dig your hole so deep before you realize your ladder no longer will allow you to crawl out of it and again, respectfully, you have hit that mark.

If you wish to continue this and want to ask questions feel free. I will do my best to explain them to you and offer up sources so you can read the info yourself. If you want to maintain your position while ignoring all laws involved, then this conversation is pretty much dead as I have no desire to continue playing this round robin argument with you.

You can either accept the facts and laws as they are, or you can choose to continue being ignorant and in the dark on the topic. If its the latter, then please dont bother responding.