Charges rec'd in death of 2 NorCal cyclists

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 21, 11:30 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > He got behind the wheel without adequate sleep.  Not any different
> > > than getting behind the wheel without adequate time since your last
> > > drink.
>
> > Tell me Tim. How do you know that?
>
> He fell asleep in the middle of the day while driving.  Duh.  
>
> The other option is that he has narcolepsy, which means he should not be
> driving at all unless the problem has been successfully treated.  Equal
> culpability.  
>
> In either case he is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Yes, but bearing responsibility for one's actions and being criminally
prosecuted are two different things. I personally believe that the
right to be free from negligent injury should be vindicated by the
civil law and not the criminal law. The exception being where the
conduct amounts to recklessness -- which has always been a surrogate
for intent. The new species of vehicular manslaughter laws turn
practically every fatal motor vehicle accident into a potential
criminal prosecution -- with the decision to prosecute left to the
DA. So, if you are high profile defendant, you get prosecuted. If
you are a socccer mom yaking on her cell phone who runs a stop, then
you probably don't. The only upside to these laws is that they are
usually classified as misdemeanors and carry short sentences. I still
don't think an isolated screw up should not subject a person to a year
in county jail. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 8:52 am, still just me <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Qui si parla
> >> > Campagnolo
> >> >
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >We had a teen here that fell asleep and killed a cyclist and he
> >> > >received essentially no punishment at all. A fine, some
> >> > >probation. He whined and cried about how sorry he was
> >> > >but.....proper punishment is for punishing and to try to
> >> > >prevent some other stupid kid from doing stupid things that
> >> > >result in an innocent getting hurt of killed. His peers see
> >> > >this as an 'oh well, I'll get a good lawyer, no biggie'.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I think the cop actually has a higher level of
> >> > responsibility as he's one duty, doing a job. That's a little
> >> > different than some kid driving home late and falling asleep -
> >> > although the results no more tragic.
> >>
> >> Disagree. The 'level of responsibility' is to drive safely and not
> >> cause an accident, period. Intent or job has nothing to do with
> >> it. These were not 'accidents' in the sense they were both
> >> preventable and were the result of negligence on the driver's
> >> part. A slap on the wrist and assuming 'they feel bad' for a while
> >> is not punishment enough.
> >
> > I agree, Peter. That's a good summation.
>
> Except you can't put a cop in with other criminals. That would be
> signing his death warrant or even worse. That means that in the case
> of a cop you're pretty much forced to go very lightly with him unless
> the crime he's committed is overwhelmingly careless or purposeful.

The safety or lack thereof for inmates in the prison system is
irrelevant. What you're implying is that some people, such as offices
of the law, should not be bound to the same rule of law as the rest of
the populace because prison might be dangerous to them.

> > That's because culturally death on the highways in "accidents" is
> > considered an acceptable loss. It's the price of progress and the
> > American Way. If you suggest that people should drive less, should
> > live closer to their jobs, should have goods and services within a
> > short distance of home, etc. then you are looked at as tantamount
> > to the Red Menace.
>
> Come on - that's easy to say and you know it isn't true. People more
> or less ignore highway deaths mainly because it doesn't seem real to
> them. Think about this - highway deaths are seldom reported directly
> whereas every night on TV you can see two dozen people murdered in
> cold blood. That tends to make people treat highway deaths as not
> quite real.

Must depend on where you live. We have near-daily reports on the news
of traffic deaths and very few reports of murders as local events.

> > The research on job-related injuries makes it quite clear that
> > shifts longer than 8 hours result in increased injuries, shifts
> > with less than a full night's sleep between them result in
> > increased injuries, and late shifts result in increased injuries.
>
> Do you have a reference for such a study?

Yeah, I'll have to dig out my old textbooks.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The safety or lack thereof for inmates in the prison system is
> irrelevant.

Then you won't mind if we put you in for a couple of days.

> What you're implying is that some people, such as offices
> of the law, should not be bound to the same rule of law as the rest of
> the populace because prison might be dangerous to them.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're acting like a complete ass
to suggest so. What I said is that a police officer in the prison system
would be essentially a death warrant in many cases. The punishment is
supposed to fit the crime and in this case, since you seem to have missed
it, the officer fell asleep at the wheel. Your pretense that this is somehow
extraordinarily aside, it isn't worthy of the death penalty.

>> Come on - that's easy to say and you know it isn't true. People more
>> or less ignore highway deaths mainly because it doesn't seem real to
>> them. Think about this - highway deaths are seldom reported directly
>> whereas every night on TV you can see two dozen people murdered in
>> cold blood. That tends to make people treat highway deaths as not
>> quite real.
>
> Must depend on where you live. We have near-daily reports on the news
> of traffic deaths and very few reports of murders as local events.

Are you being purposely ignorant? Turn on any TV in prime time and you will
observe a murder on just about every channel within a half hour or less. Do
you suppose that people imagine a difference between a fictional murder and
reports such as the police officer falling asleep at the wheel?

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The safety or lack thereof for inmates in the prison system is
> > irrelevant.
>
> Then you won't mind if we put you in for a couple of days.

Are you deliberately obtuse, Tom, or is it something you can't help?

> > What you're implying is that some people, such as offices of the
> > law, should not be bound to the same rule of law as the rest of the
> > populace because prison might be dangerous to them.
>
> I said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're acting like a
> complete ass to suggest so. What I said is that a police officer in
> the prison system would be essentially a death warrant in many cases.

And therefore shouldn't be sent to prison, placing him in a different
relationship with the rule of law than you or I would have. However,
the choice of whether to prosecute or not and the sentence handed down
if there is a guilty verdict should be based on the controlling facts of
the situation and not what "might" happen in prison.

Apparently it is the case that, unlike you, I am willing to support due
process. If the jury finds him not guilty, fine. If the jury finds him
guilty, fine. From the publicly available information, the officer
acted negligently and killed two innocent people and injured a third.
He should be prosecuted for this like any other citizen and given no
special treatment because he is a police officer or because of what
might happen to a police officer in prison. Additionally there are ways
around that latter problem to make his safety no less precarious than
that of any other inmate, if it came to that.

> The punishment is supposed to fit the crime and in this case, since
> you seem to have missed it, the officer fell asleep at the wheel.
> Your pretense that this is somehow extraordinarily aside, it isn't
> worthy of the death penalty.

You're the one jacking up the imaginary stakes to Wagnerian proportions,
Tom.

BTW, prison is a potential death sentence to every inmate. Does that
mean nobody should be sent to prison?

> >> Come on - that's easy to say and you know it isn't true. People
> >> more or less ignore highway deaths mainly because it doesn't seem
> >> real to them. Think about this - highway deaths are seldom
> >> reported directly whereas every night on TV you can see two dozen
> >> people murdered in cold blood. That tends to make people treat
> >> highway deaths as not quite real.
> >
> > Must depend on where you live. We have near-daily reports on the
> > news of traffic deaths and very few reports of murders as local
> > events.
>
> Are you being purposely ignorant? Turn on any TV in prime time and
> you will observe a murder on just about every channel within a half
> hour or less.

We must watch different channels.

> Do you suppose that people imagine a difference between a fictional
> murder and reports such as the police officer falling asleep at the
> wheel?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think that people can make a distinction
between a fictional murder and real life events. If you have trouble
understanding the difference, maybe you need to turn off your TV and get
out more.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<34d3a2ce-9616-4730-a3f4-2f3290a47117@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 11:30 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >  "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > > He got behind the wheel without adequate sleep.  Not any different
> > > > than getting behind the wheel without adequate time since your last
> > > > drink.
> >
> > > Tell me Tim. How do you know that?
> >
> > He fell asleep in the middle of the day while driving.  Duh.  
> >
> > The other option is that he has narcolepsy, which means he should not be
> > driving at all unless the problem has been successfully treated.  Equal
> > culpability.  
> >
> > In either case he is responsible for the consequences of his actions.
>
> Yes, but bearing responsibility for one's actions and being criminally
> prosecuted are two different things. I personally believe that the
> right to be free from negligent injury should be vindicated by the
> civil law and not the criminal law. The exception being where the
> conduct amounts to recklessness -- which has always been a surrogate
> for intent. The new species of vehicular manslaughter laws turn
> practically every fatal motor vehicle accident into a potential
> criminal prosecution -- with the decision to prosecute left to the
> DA. So, if you are high profile defendant, you get prosecuted. If
> you are a socccer mom yaking on her cell phone who runs a stop, then
> you probably don't. The only upside to these laws is that they are
> usually classified as misdemeanors and carry short sentences. I still
> don't think an isolated screw up should not subject a person to a year
> in county jail.

Thanks. Is it so that conviction of a crime
makes winning a civil case almost sure?

--
Michael Press

 

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 21, 3:37 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but bearing responsibility for one's actions and being criminally
> prosecuted are two different things. I personally believe that the
> right to be free from negligent injury should be vindicated by the
> civil law and not the criminal law. The exception being where the
> conduct amounts to recklessness -- which has always been a surrogate
> for intent. The new species of vehicular manslaughter laws turn
> practically every fatal motor vehicle accident into a potential
> criminal prosecution -- with the decision to prosecute left to the
> DA. So, if you are high profile defendant, you get prosecuted. If
> you are a socccer mom yaking on her cell phone who runs a stop, then
> you probably don't. The only upside to these laws is that they are
> usually classified as misdemeanors and carry short sentences. I still
> don't think an isolated screw up should not subject a person to a year
> in county jail. -- Jay Beattie.

But I do think that an isolated screw up where you kill someone with
your car should mean you never, ever drive again.

Let's get back to treating driving as a privilege. A revocable one.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 22, 10:12 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <34d3a2ce-9616-4730-a3f4-2f3290a47...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>  Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 11:30 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > >  "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > > He got behind the wheel without adequate sleep.  Not any different
> > > > > than getting behind the wheel without adequate time since your last
> > > > > drink.
>
> > > > Tell me Tim. How do you know that?
>
> > > He fell asleep in the middle of the day while driving.  Duh.  
>
> > > The other option is that he has narcolepsy, which means he should notbe
> > > driving at all unless the problem has been successfully treated.  Equal
> > > culpability.  
>
> > > In either case he is responsible for the consequences of his actions.
>
> > Yes, but bearing responsibility for one's actions and being criminally
> > prosecuted are two different things.   I personally believe that the
> > right to be free from negligent injury should be vindicated by the
> > civil law and not the criminal law. The exception being where the
> > conduct amounts to recklessness -- which has always been a surrogate
> > for intent. The new species of vehicular manslaughter laws turn
> > practically every fatal motor vehicle accident into a potential
> > criminal prosecution -- with the decision to prosecute left to the
> > DA.  So, if you are high profile defendant, you get prosecuted.  If
> > you are a socccer mom yaking on her cell phone who runs a stop, then
> > you probably don't. The only upside to these laws is that they are
> > usually classified as misdemeanors and carry short sentences. I still
> > don't think an isolated screw up should not subject a person to a year
> > in county jail.
>
> Thanks. Is it so that conviction of a crime
> makes winning a civil case almost sure?
>

Yes, unless the criminal statute says otherwise and assuming that
California follows ordinary "issue preclusion" doctrine. Under that
doctrine, an issue proved against a defendant in a criminal action is
conclusive in a second civil action arising out of the same operative
facts. The exception is where the statute says that conviction is
inadmissible in a subsequent civil action -- which is often the case
with infractions (traffic violations, etc.) where giving preclusive
effect to a conviction would choke the system with challenges by
individuals who are trying to avoid liability in anticipated civil
actions.-- Jay Beattie.