Local cop speeds, kills pedestrian; gets a warning

[Wells]

I did not mean you physically write a ticket to the family for something they did not do. I obviously meant his estate, you're arguing semantics

When you say "fine his family" you don't get to be pissy when people don't assume you mean "sue his estate in a civil court".

[Nefarious Tea]

Use crosswalk? Look both ways when you cross? I dont know 40 miles is what, 70km? That's not very fast.

It's also 3-4 times the speed necessary to kill a pedestrian. It's also nearly twice the speed limit.

But, like most places in the Americas... Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? Those who enforce the laws are above nearly all of them, and those who make them certainly are.

[vindicatorx]

lol oh you can bet people will come to the cops defense on this. I can hear them coming...

you can also bet anyone else would be tossed in jail for manslaughter, but a cop? nah.

A) the guy was wearing dark clothes while it was dark out and he crossed at a non crosswalk.
B) Police are allowed to speed while performing their duties.

Any one else would have probably gotten the same thing. I love when assholes try and make it sound like an accident is due to some malicious behavior.

I myself have nearly hit morons such as the pedestrian often because they are oblivious to the area around them. I guess my mother was the only one who taught their child to look both ways before crossing the road?

[Kasierith]

It's also 3-4 times the speed necessary to kill a pedestrian. It's also nearly twice the speed limit.

But, like most places in the Americas... Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? Those who enforce the laws are above nearly all of them, and those who make them certainly are.

By that reasoning, in a legal sense anyone going over 10 miles per hour, regardless of following the speed limit, is vulnerable to a vehicular manslaughter charge because they are at a speed with the potential to take a human life.

Also, if you really, really think that people who are in control having the ability to manipulate the system with far greater degrees of success is an American thing, you haven't been paying attention to.. anywhere.

[Spiffums]

http://m.waff.com/waff/db_330702/con...tguid=SSN9Nzft



Kind of a big story here right now. This isn't even an anti-cop thing. This a case of a cop getting away with a crime. People make mistakes, but if you give specific people special rules, then you're at fault for letting them get away with it.


http://m.decaturdaily.com/news/offic....html?mode=jqm

The reasoning here is that the victim did not use a crosswalk. There's like one crosswalk in this town. You can't tell me that the cop isn't at fault for not watching the road. Especially since he was speeding. And the fact the victim was wearing black is also irrelevant. If it was too dark to see, the cop would need to have his lights on. There is no reason the cop should not have seen and reacted to the pedestrian. You know, unless he was speeding and possibly looking away from the road.

That was my exact reasoning for why people should have just ran over the protesters blocking the road. Jaywalking is a crime!

[Wells]

That was my exact reasoning for why people should have just ran over the protesters blocking the road. Jaywalking is a crime!

So is purposefully hitting people with your car

[Kasierith]

So is purposefully hitting people with your car

Last I saw purposeful harm wasn't even considered in this situation. Escalating it from a vehicle accident to intentional homicide is a bit of a leap.

[Wells]

Last I saw purposeful harm wasn't even considered in this situation. Escalating it from a vehicle accident to intentional homicide is a bit of a leap.

The guy I quoted was advocating homicide against protesters for being in the street.

[Templar 331]

Use a crosswalk or you'd better be booking ass.

Pretty much agree with this. I feel sorry for the old man but....

who did not use a nearby crosswalk to cross Sparkman Street Southwest, made an improper crossing

And I really like this one.

People don't use the crosswalk because it's about 20 feet away from the parking lot,

So because he didn't feel like using the crosswalk that was next to him he was hit by a car. If it had been anyone else we wouldn't know the speed the car was going and it would still be his fault for crossing the street in the wrong place. One thing to always remember about the road, car always wins over person. It doesn't matter who's behind the wheel, you're going to be under it if you aren't careful.

Now for the warning. It probably should have been more sever than that. I wouldn't go manslaughter because the old man did walk in front of the cop but still. 5:00 is close to dark, but you're more likely to have the sun in your eyes than it being to dark to see.

[Kasierith]

The guy I quoted was advocating homicide against protesters for being in the street.

Oh, my mistake than. Yes, the claim that another's crime gives one the ability to commit crimes against them in some sort of Kantian retribution fantasy is pretty ludicrous.

[Ofire]

I personally can vouch for not being able to see people in the dark with my lights on, unless your light is beaming right on them or they are wearing reflective clothing or possibly all white, they are hard to see. I know because I side swiped this one dumbass who was walking on the edge of a very thin road in all black clothing when it was dark and raining. I honestly didnt stop to check on them, because I knew I would get the same bullshit blamed on me for "not watching the road" yeh screw that.

Sucks the police dude killed the guy, but seriously IF he has his lights on, then one could argue the older guy should have seen him coming down the road and not tried to cross it. People are just stupid all around, and then blame gets thrown around because SOMEONE has to be blamed, nothing can be considered an accident. Police was speeding = breaking the law/being stupid, old dude was jaywalking = breaking the law, being stupid. They both screwed up, one came out better than the other. Both made mistakes, one mistake cost one his life, the other mistake possibly his job. End of story, world keeps spinning

[Piglord]

If the cop wasn't speeding would he have still struck the pedestrian? Don't know. Would the pedestrian still been hit if he wasn't jaywalking and wearing dark clothes at night? Nope. For those of you saying manslaughter or even homicide (really?), should all people that run over animals be charged with cruelty to animals?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Jaywalking is illegal

Use a crosswalk or you'd better be booking ass.

The vehicle MUST still yield regardless.

- - - Updated - - -

If the cop wasn't speeding would he have still struck the pedestrian? Don't know. Would the pedestrian still been hit if he wasn't jaywalking and wearing dark clothes at night? Nope. For those of you saying manslaughter or even homicide (really?), should all people that run over animals be charged with cruelty to animals?

So you basically just compared a person to roadkill. Also, dark clothes at night? Where are you seeing that? I don't see clothes mentioned anywhere plus they say it happened just before 5 PM, and sunset for that day was 4:52 PM, which means it was still pretty light outside given how long light lingers after sunset.

- - - Updated - - -

I personally can vouch for not being able to see people in the dark with my lights on, unless your light is beaming right on them or they are wearing reflective clothing or possibly all white, they are hard to see. I know because I side swiped this one dumbass who was walking on the edge of a very thin road in all black clothing when it was dark and raining. I honestly didnt stop to check on them, because I knew I would get the same bullshit blamed on me for "not watching the road" yeh screw that.

Sucks the police dude killed the guy, but seriously IF he has his lights on, then one could argue the older guy should have seen him coming down the road and not tried to cross it. People are just stupid all around, and then blame gets thrown around because SOMEONE has to be blamed, nothing can be considered an accident. Police was speeding = breaking the law/being stupid, old dude was jaywalking = breaking the law, being stupid. They both screwed up, one came out better than the other. Both made mistakes, one mistake cost one his life, the other mistake possibly his job. End of story, world keeps spinning

So you did a hit-and-run on a person and didn't even stop to see if you killed them because you don't believe you were at fault, even though you almost certainly were given that headlights illuminate the area ahead of you enough for you to be able to swerve, unless they were damaged, in which case it is still your fault, just in a different way. Like, the whole 'dark and rainy' excuse is pretty lame given that you should slow the fuck down when conditions are like that, for exactly what happened with you.

You very rarely have an excuse when you hit a person with your car. Jaywalking or not, you must yield to a pedestrian, and the fact that it was a fucking 25 zone means he should have been watching for that kind of shit.

[Kasierith]

The vehicle MUST still yield regardless.

The vehicle MUST make a conscious effort to be fully aware of the environment and therefore practice safe driving, and make a conscious effort to stop if something like a pedestrian is in the way once said pedestrian is seen. Nowhere in that is it the driver's fault if he fails to stop completely if a pedestrian makes an illegal crossing.

In order to establish vehicular manslaughter, you have to have one of two things: intend to harm but not necessarily to hurt or identification of harm but not making any action to change course (I didn't think that bumping his car would send it off the road, officer, or I saw him but he was on the road and I had the right of way), or taking actions that significantly put others at risk with gross negligence for the potential consequences, such as talking on your phone, making an illegal turn, driving without your lights on, and things like that. 15 miles over the speed limit, while illegal, is far more into the gray area in terms of gross negligence, and is a situation where environmental factors come into play. Was it the middle of the day with a person in bright clothing? should have seen it. Was it during the time of the day where vision is most naturally obscured and with a person with completely dark clothing? The expectation that he should have identified the problem regardless of speed is far more diminished in that situation.

[Drsolders]

The vehicle MUST make a conscious effort to be fully aware of the environment and therefore practice safe driving, and make a conscious effort to stop if something like a pedestrian is in the way once said pedestrian is seen. Nowhere in that is it the driver's fault if he fails to stop completely if a pedestrian makes an illegal crossing.

In order to establish vehicular manslaughter, you have to have one of two things: intend to harm but not necessarily to hurt or identification of harm but not making any action to change course (I didn't think that bumping his car would send it off the road, officer, or I saw him but he was on the road and I had the right of way), or taking actions that significantly put others at risk with gross negligence for the potential consequences, such as talking on your phone, making an illegal turn, driving without your lights on, and things like that. 15 miles over the speed limit, while illegal, is far more into the gray area in terms of gross negligence, and is a situation where environmental factors come into play. Was it the middle of the day with a person in bright clothing? should have seen it. Was it during the time of the day where vision is most naturally obscured and with a person with completely dark clothing? The expectation that he should have identified the problem regardless of speed is far more diminished in that situation.

Get out of here with those facts. No one likes those.

[Independent voter]

"According to an Alabama State Trooper report, the primary contributing factor in the collision was that William Elbert Anderson, 71, of Cullman, who did not use a nearby crosswalk to cross Sparkman Street Southwest, made an improper crossing. Holladay told investigators he didn't see Anderson crossing the street westbound about 5 p.m. The report said Anderson was wearing dark clothing.

Police Chief Ron Puckett said the warning was Holladay's first disciplinary action."

First off, I'm going to guess he didn't want to kill the guy. If the pedestrian wasn't using the crosswalks, he's at least partially at fault. Going twice the speed limit is wrong and even though the report said it had nothing to do with the accident, if he was doing 25mph instead of 40mph logic says he would've had more time to stop, swerve or whatever.

[Piglord]

So you basically just compared a person to roadkill. Also, dark clothes at night? Where are you seeing that? I don't see clothes mentioned anywhere plus they say it happened just before 5 PM, and sunset for that day was 4:52 PM, which means it was still pretty light outside given how long light lingers after sunset.

Where the hell did I compare a person to roadkill? As for the dark clothes at night, did you actually read the fucking article? It was only seven sentences long. I have the attention span of a goddamn goldfish and I was able to slog through it, so it wasn't that difficult. As for the last thing you said, anything past 4:53 is night time. regardless of how much light you feel there might be it's still night time.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The vehicle MUST make a conscious effort to be fully aware of the environment and therefore practice safe driving, and make a conscious effort to stop if something like a pedestrian is in the way once said pedestrian is seen. Nowhere in that is it the driver's fault if he fails to stop completely if a pedestrian makes an illegal crossing.

In order to establish vehicular manslaughter, you have to have one of two things: intend to harm but not necessarily to hurt or identification of harm but not making any action to change course (I didn't think that bumping his car would send it off the road, officer, or I saw him but he was on the road and I had the right of way), or taking actions that significantly put others at risk with gross negligence for the potential consequences, such as talking on your phone, making an illegal turn, driving without your lights on, and things like that. 15 miles over the speed limit, while illegal, is far more into the gray area in terms of gross negligence, and is a situation where environmental factors come into play. Was it the middle of the day with a person in bright clothing? should have seen it. Was it during the time of the day where vision is most naturally obscured and with a person with completely dark clothing? The expectation that he should have identified the problem regardless of speed is far more diminished in that situation.

Nothing you said contradicted what I said. You cannot just run somebody over because they are jaywalking, you have to yield. I am by no means suggesting that people have magical foresight, I'm saying that, regardless of the legality of a crossing, you never get the ability to run them without consequence due to that.

About this case specifically, the speed is certainly an extremely important factor. The faster you are going, the less time you have to react to things. It's not like he was going 80 in a 65, he was going 40 in a 25. Areas that are limited to 25 are generally that way because of them being residential with the expectation of such crossings. It also was not yet dark, it was at best a few minutes after sunrise, which is decently bright. It is not mentioned whether he was wearing dark clothing.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Where the hell did I compare a person to roadkill? As for the dark clothes at night, did you actually read the fucking article? It was only seven sentences long. I have the attention span of a goddamn goldfish and I was able to slog through it, so it wasn't that difficult. As for the last thing you said, anything past 4:53 is night time. regardless of how much light you feel there might be it's still night time.

For those of you saying manslaughter or even homicide (really?), should all people that run over animals be charged with cruelty to animals?

http://www.waff.com/story/27309862/m...olved-accident

Had to read that because the link in the OP wasn't working. It's still not really justifiable given he was driving in a residential area with a nearby school. It's a pretty high expectation for there to be people crossing the street in such a place, meaning if you're driving through, you need to be driving at an appropriate speed and paying enough attention that you don't hit somebody. It's not like the guy jumped out in front of him.

- - - Updated - - -

If a normal civilian wouldn't be charged, then why should a cop? The pedestrian was jaywalking and was negligent. The only reason people are upset is because a cop was involved, and everyone is looking for an excuse to crucify a cop.

A normal person probably would be charged. Dude was speeding in a school zone and the conditions were not ridiculous or unexpected.

[Kasierith]

Nothing you said contradicted what I said. You cannot just run somebody over because they are jaywalking, you have to yield. I am by no means suggesting that people have magical foresight, I'm saying that, regardless of the legality of a crossing, you never get the ability to run them without consequence due to that.

About this case specifically, the speed is certainly an extremely important factor. The faster you are going, the less time you have to react to things. It's not like he was going 80 in a 65, he was going 40 in a 25. Areas that are limited to 25 are generally that way because of them being residential with the expectation of such crossings. It also was not yet dark, it was at best a few minutes after sunrise, which is decently bright. It is not mentioned whether he was wearing dark clothing.

I wasn't contradicting you as much as drawing attention to the key points in why he was not charged with vehicular manslaughter. Not every response to another poster is inherently hostile or in direct opposition to. I did, in fact, pointing that that recognizing that you may hurt someone but not making an attempt to change your course is very definitely considered vehicular manslaughter, as one of the two primary resting criteria for the charge.

I should point out that dusk and dawn are seen as the most dangerous points during driving. The eyes are very bad at adjusting fine details at that time, in addition to lights not being as obvious to pedestrians as well as not all drivers having their lights on yet to begin with. Saying that it was not dark yet means that it is actually in a more dangerous part of the day. http://boomersurvive-thriveguide.typ...-to-drive.html

Also, most school zones are fairly nebulous and based on the individual school/county; while ~7:00 pm is definitely the safest time to assume that restricted hours end, many have restricted hours to about an hour after school gets out, so usually around 4:00; I don't see 5:00 as being particularly hazerdous given the proximity of a school.

Also, the police officer wrote in his official statement that the man was wearing dark clothing.