It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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,
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?
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 HandyDandy
So you are telling me the officer lost his license for refusing any testing? If not, again, preferential treatment.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
I would have assaulted them too and I hope the family still does.
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.
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?
Originally posted by HandyDandy
And you have the gaul to call me 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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Maybe you should learn how the laws work as well as understand the fact that California is not New York.
What else do you have that I can shoot 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Complete LIE. Why do you want to be known as a liar on here?
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Can refuse these tests my ass.
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.
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.
Exactly what part of "not forced to turn evidence over against ones self - IE 5th Amendment", do you not understand?
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
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 HandyDandy
Well, well...cops acting illegally. never heard that before.
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.
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.
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.
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
And yet, I've met a many cop who knows little of the law he is suppossed to uphold. Are you one of them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Nothing...... but be prepared for the wrath of a lawyer. This should be fun to watch.
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.
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,
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please tell me how crossing a "widely known intersection" is against the law?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
The rest is just you telling me I'm an idiot. Cop meet kettle.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
BTW...I could give a rat's ass of your legalize.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Notice it says at any intersection marked or not? With crossing lights or not.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Notice how the article states they crossed where no cross walk was present / valid?
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.
The pair was crossing a street at a widely-recognized intersection
All fine and dandy however the 2 did not cross at an intersection
The pair was crossing a street at a widely-recognized intersection
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.