If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Cop convicted for killing pedestrian while speeding... just kidding. They're not even filing charges   (sfgate.com) divider line 91
    More: Sick, Delia Delgadillo, Alameda County, Just Kidding, J.D. Nelson  
•       •       •

9831 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2014 at 1:08 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-30 09:41:40 PM  
Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.
 
2014-04-30 11:50:17 PM  

lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.


The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.
 
2014-05-01 12:56:53 AM  

Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.


Car stopping distance at 50mph is 175 ft. I don't think a five foot displacement in the pedestrians made much of a difference.
 
2014-05-01 01:00:28 AM  
Incidentally, according to other articles, the speed limit there was 35mph, and the cop told the investigators he was doing 40mph... 13mph below his actual speed. I wonder if he regularly uses estimation when he tickets others for speeding.
 
2014-05-01 01:02:25 AM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.

Car stopping distance at 50mph is 175 ft. I don't think a five foot displacement in the pedestrians made much of a difference.


and the proper charges would include piling on charges:
reckless driving,
driving in a negligent manner
etc etc etc

so sure, they jury wouldnt find neg homicide, but would probably find reckless driving or some such other charge ...

strange
if it were a 19yo black guy, pretty certain that they would have thrown the book at him ...
 
2014-05-01 01:16:04 AM  
Deputy Jonathan Hamm was traveling above the speed limit in a marked Dodge Charger near Mission Boulevard and Cherry Way in the unincorporated Cherryland neighborhood about 4:30 a.m. April 19, 2013, when he hit 38-year-old Valdemar Flores-Rosas of Hayward and Delia Delgadillo,

You might say he was...driving like a madman
 
2014-05-01 01:16:35 AM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.

Car stopping distance at 50mph is 175 ft. I don't think a five foot displacement in the pedestrians made much of a difference.


Yes, but the intoxication makes all the difference.  It's 4:30 AM.  What color clothes were they wearing?  More details need to be known.
 
2014-05-01 01:18:50 AM  
No charges?

when he hit 38-year-old Valdemar Flores-Rosas of Hayward and Delia Delgadillo

Well there's your problem.
 
2014-05-01 01:20:02 AM  
Years ago I worked for a limousine company, and one of our drivers, in an SUV was involved in an accident with an LAPD patrol car in Hollywood. Our driver was okay, but the cops were injured seriously enough to warrant being put in an ambulance and sent to the hospital.

Our company owner and our ops manager went down to the accident site, where the cops were in the process of handcuffing our driver and throwing his ass in the slammer. The cops were extremely pissed at our driver and it looked like he was about to have the longest day of his poor life.

Until the ops manager uploaded our crash camera footage from the SUV. It clearly showed the cops making a left hand turn from the far right hand lane, even going so far as to swerve around and cut off a large truck that was beside him in the left hand lane. No turn signal, no lights, nothing. Just plain bad driving because some cops believe traffic safety laws don't apply to them.

The cops uncuffed our driver and let him go. And they didn't seem too pleased about it.

That one crash cam paid for every camera in the fleet that day.

Oh, and we ordered a brand new SUV, courtesy of the LAPD.
 
2014-05-01 01:20:36 AM  

BuckTurgidson: No charges?

when he hit 38-year-old Valdemar Flores-Rosas of Hayward and Delia Delgadillo

Well there's your problem.


Yup.
 
2014-05-01 01:21:46 AM  

MattyFridays: Theaetetus: Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.

Car stopping distance at 50mph is 175 ft. I don't think a five foot displacement in the pedestrians made much of a difference.

Yes, but the intoxication makes all the difference.  It's 4:30 AM.  What color clothes were they wearing?  More details need to be known.


It's true. It's a scientifish fact that cars are magnetically attracted to drunk pedestrians. Really, they only have themselves to blame.
 
2014-05-01 01:22:14 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Years ago I worked for a limousine company, and one of our drivers, in an SUV was involved in an accident with an LAPD patrol car in Hollywood. Our driver was okay, but the cops were injured seriously enough to warrant being put in an ambulance and sent to the hospital.

Our company owner and our ops manager went down to the accident site, where the cops were in the process of handcuffing our driver and throwing his ass in the slammer. The cops were extremely pissed at our driver and it looked like he was about to have the longest day of his poor life.

Until the ops manager uploaded our crash camera footage from the SUV. It clearly showed the cops making a left hand turn from the far right hand lane, even going so far as to swerve around and cut off a large truck that was beside him in the left hand lane. No turn signal, no lights, nothing. Just plain bad driving because some cops believe traffic safety laws don't apply to them.

The cops uncuffed our driver and let him go. And they didn't seem too pleased about it.

That one crash cam paid for every camera in the fleet that day.

Oh, and we ordered a brand new SUV, courtesy of the LAPD.


Yup.
 
2014-05-01 01:23:15 AM  

you are a puppet: Deputy Jonathan Hamm was traveling above the speed limit in a marked Dodge Charger near Mission Boulevard and Cherry Way in the unincorporated Cherryland neighborhood about 4:30 a.m. April 19, 2013, when he hit 38-year-old Valdemar Flores-Rosas of Hayward and Delia Delgadillo,

You might say he was...driving like a madman


Nice, subtle.
 
2014-05-01 01:25:07 AM  
Deputy Jonathan Hamm was traveling above the speed limit in a marked Dodge Charger..."


So Don Draper was driving the General Lee? I'm confused!
 
2014-05-01 01:29:40 AM  
See? This what happens when you walk instead of drive.
 
2014-05-01 01:30:23 AM  

Rincewind53: However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.


Nice joke.

Qualified immunity pretty much guarantees that an Officer can never be held liable for anything he does on duty.

Also, this is California where Officers are untouchable.  If a case like this were to go to trial, there would be a wall of uniformed Officers in the courtroom every day.  Jurors have family members to threaten, etc.
 
2014-05-01 01:32:05 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Years ago I worked for a limousine company, and one of our drivers, in an SUV was involved in an accident with an LAPD patrol car in Hollywood. Our driver was okay, but the cops were injured seriously enough to warrant being put in an ambulance and sent to the hospital.

Our company owner and our ops manager went down to the accident site, where the cops were in the process of handcuffing our driver and throwing his ass in the slammer. The cops were extremely pissed at our driver and it looked like he was about to have the longest day of his poor life.

Until the ops manager uploaded our crash camera footage from the SUV. It clearly showed the cops making a left hand turn from the far right hand lane, even going so far as to swerve around and cut off a large truck that was beside him in the left hand lane. No turn signal, no lights, nothing. Just plain bad driving because some cops believe traffic safety laws don't apply to them.

The cops uncuffed our driver and let him go. And they didn't seem too pleased about it.

That one crash cam paid for every camera in the fleet that day.

Oh, and we ordered a brand new SUV, courtesy of the LAPD.


How many days was it before they shot one of your drivers? Or, at the very least, handed out a hefty, fake ticket for some shiat?
 
2014-05-01 01:33:57 AM  
If this had been any of us normal people and we had even taken a sip of communion wine in the last 8 hours, we'd be going downtown for DUI.
 
2014-05-01 01:34:06 AM  
Law enforcement protects their own whether they should or not.
 
2014-05-01 01:35:39 AM  

Theaetetus: Car stopping distance at 50mph is 175 ft. I don't think a five foot displacement in the pedestrians made much of a difference.


I once nearly hit a pedestrian because of five to ten feet - he was wearing dark clothes, at night, and jaywalked rather than walk the extra few feet to reach the lighted intersection, so he was crossing a dark section of street.  Guy got really lucky I saw him at the last second and was able to swerve out of the way.
 
2014-05-01 01:36:36 AM  

BuckTurgidson: No charges?

when he hit 38-year-old Valdemar Flores-Rosas of Hayward and Delia Delgadillo

Well there's your problem.


It's sad how this is one of the first things I checked for too .
 
2014-05-01 01:40:14 AM  
Well, in the Cincinnati area we have a Deputy who plugged a 19 blonde chick. He on paid leave while they investigate. We'll see how that plays out. Taking bets,'

http://www.wlwt.com/news/raw-dash-cam-video-hebron-officerinvolved-s ho oting/25704856
 
2014-05-01 01:47:47 AM  

fnordfocus: Rincewind53: However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.

Nice joke.

Qualified immunity pretty much guarantees that an Officer can never be held liable for anything he does on duty.

Also, this is California where Officers are untouchable.  If a case like this were to go to trial, there would be a wall of uniformed Officers in the courtroom every day.  Jurors have family members to threaten, etc.


It doesn't come from the officer: they sue the city/county the officer works for.

It happens daily in the Bay Area -- do something stupid, get hurt doing it, sue the city, collect millions. Google John L. Burris if you want to lose what faith remains in the legal system.
 
2014-05-01 01:52:03 AM  
Imagine if a speeding motorist had hit a cop on foot.

No charges either right?

/eyeroll
 
2014-05-01 01:53:18 AM  
 
2014-05-01 01:54:39 AM  
Now to be fair here,  the officer was on official business at the time (assuming this is true).  He just wasn't out joyriding. in the middle of the night on the open road (not that that ever happens.....)  From the article: "Sheriff's Sgt. J.D. Nelson said Monday that Hamm had been looking for a car involved in a crime in the predawn hours, when there is usually little pedestrian traffic." This gives a fig leaf of propriety that would make any DA case against them virtually impossible.

Here is all the defense would need to have in front of the jury regardless of the speeding: He was going quicker than normal so as to cover more ground in the search for a vehicle involved in a crime, he took his eyes of forward to scan down the side streets of the coming intersection and two drunk pedestrians staggered in front of him and he ran them over. He didn't have his lights and sirens on as he wasn't responding and he didn't want to tip off the vehicle he was looking for. It was a tragic accident and the officer is broken up over it.

The only way you get around this is if you have time stamps from his personal phone at that moment of him texting or playing a game.  Otherwise you have at the very least a mistrial if not an acquittal.   Cops already get a benefit of the doubt and unless you have a real smoking gun of incompetence or straight up murder by mowing them down to score some points and add a couple pedestrian stamps on the side of his vehicle your going to lose.  Maybe you want the DA to waste some court time, officer overtime, judicial staff on the case, but if you know a case can't be proven, all you are doing is wasting taxpayer time and making it more likely they will have to short change a case where there is a chance to hold someone accountable.
 
2014-05-01 01:57:45 AM  

fnordfocus: Qualified immunity pretty much guarantees that an Officer can never be held liable for anything he does on duty.


That's not how qualified immunity works.
 
2014-05-01 02:11:01 AM  
I find it surprising that cops don't develop sudden lead aneurysm...

As often as we hear about this 'blue wall' and 'blue brotherhood'
keeping drug dealers, thieves, and murderers on the force, while
citizens die or are thrown in prison for trumped up charges, the
citizens need to take back the law that the 'police' have corrupted.

What good is a police force that condones and encourages such
corruption?
 
2014-05-01 02:17:47 AM  
And this is why police officers have such a bad rap. Another situation where coworkers cover them, and so does the court system.
 
2014-05-01 02:26:51 AM  

CruiserTwelve: fnordfocus: Qualified immunity pretty much guarantees that an Officer can never be held liable for anything he does on duty.

That's not how qualified immunity works.


Yep.

/source; just took an exam on this 48 hours ago.
 
2014-05-01 02:29:50 AM  

Daedalus27: Now to be fair here,  the officer was on official business at the time (assuming this is true).  He just wasn't out joyriding. in the middle of the night on the open road (not that that ever happens.....)  From the article: "Sheriff's Sgt. J.D. Nelson said Monday that Hamm had been looking for a car involved in a crime in the predawn hours, when there is usually little pedestrian traffic." This gives a fig leaf of propriety that would make any DA case against them virtually impossible.

Here is all the defense would need to have in front of the jury regardless of the speeding: He was going quicker than normal so as to cover more ground in the search for a vehicle involved in a crime, he took his eyes of forward to scan down the side streets of the coming intersection and two drunk pedestrians staggered in front of him and he ran them over. He didn't have his lights and sirens on as he wasn't responding and he didn't want to tip off the vehicle he was looking for. It was a tragic accident and the officer is broken up over it.

The only way you get around this is if you have time stamps from his personal phone at that moment of him texting or playing a game.  Otherwise you have at the very least a mistrial if not an acquittal.   Cops already get a benefit of the doubt and unless you have a real smoking gun of incompetence or straight up murder by mowing them down to score some points and add a couple pedestrian stamps on the side of his vehicle your going to lose.  Maybe you want the DA to waste some court time, officer overtime, judicial staff on the case, but if you know a case can't be proven, all you are doing is wasting taxpayer time and making it more likely they will have to short change a case where there is a chance to hold someone accountable.


A criminal case won't stick, but the county will pay out several million in a settlement. Maybe an individual settlement isn't justice, but it adds up to cause a budget problem, and eventually will cause a character problem with the courts. (See fed takeover of Oakland's PD, and CA prison system).

I don't know what causes it. I really can't say racism anymore -- it just appears to be a favored personality type in hiring decisions. Dashcams and badgecams seem to be the only check that works to limit this behavior.
 
2014-05-01 02:30:53 AM  

Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.



I wonder if the prosecution would reach that conclusion and exercise their discretion in the same way if a speeding car driven by Ms Delgadillo had run over and killed one off-duty cop and injured another when the pair ventured slightly outside the crosswalk during a late-night stroll home from the bar through a low-traffic area. Surely the DA wouldn't charge her with *anything*. Not negligent homicide, not vehicular manslaughter...nothing.

And yes, extracting a hefty penalty from the taxpayers does sound like quite a price for the officer not to pay.
 
2014-05-01 02:33:33 AM  

CruiserTwelve: fnordfocus: Qualified immunity pretty much guarantees that an Officer can never be held liable for anything he does on duty.

That's not how qualified immunity works.


Can we all meet up after the disposition of this case and compare notes?

Please make a note in your calendar.

I look forward to it with the usual sinking hopelessness.
 
2014-05-01 02:34:36 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Years ago I worked for a limousine company, and one of our drivers, in an SUV was involved in an accident with an LAPD patrol car in Hollywood. Our driver was okay, but the cops were injured seriously enough to warrant being put in an ambulance and sent to the hospital.

Our company owner and our ops manager went down to the accident site, where the cops were in the process of handcuffing our driver and throwing his ass in the slammer. The cops were extremely pissed at our driver and it looked like he was about to have the longest day of his poor life.

Until the ops manager uploaded our crash camera footage from the SUV. It clearly showed the cops making a left hand turn from the far right hand lane, even going so far as to swerve around and cut off a large truck that was beside him in the left hand lane. No turn signal, no lights, nothing. Just plain bad driving because some cops believe traffic safety laws don't apply to them.

The cops uncuffed our driver and let him go. And they didn't seem too pleased about it.

That one crash cam paid for every camera in the fleet that day.

Oh, and we ordered a brand new SUV, courtesy of the LAPD.


And the COPS were arrested for false arrest and menacing, right?
RIGHT?
FARKING ASSHOLES

sigh
I REALLY need to get me a dash cam.
/lazy bastard
 
2014-05-01 02:38:23 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.


I wonder if the prosecution would reach that conclusion and exercise their discretion in the same way if a speeding car driven by Ms Delgadillo had run over and killed one off-duty cop and injured another when the pair ventured slightly outside the crosswalk during a late-night stroll home from the bar through a low-traffic area. Surely the DA wouldn't charge her with *anything*. Not negligent homicide, not vehicular manslaughter...nothing.

And yes, extracting a hefty penalty from the taxpayers does sound like quite a price for the officer not to pay.


hah
what a silly question
you KNOW that cops are special people and brown people are assumed guilty just because they are brown

it would be NICE if we actually started treating cops the way that they deserved
 
2014-05-01 02:40:54 AM  
Wait, why am I proud of my country, again?
 
2014-05-01 02:43:44 AM  
Of course they're not filing charges. Who would convict a dead guy?
 
2014-05-01 02:45:36 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Years ago I worked for a limousine company, and one of our drivers, in an SUV was involved in an accident with an LAPD patrol car in Hollywood. Our driver was okay, but the cops were injured seriously enough to warrant being put in an ambulance and sent to the hospital.

Our company owner and our ops manager went down to the accident site, where the cops were in the process of handcuffing our driver and throwing his ass in the slammer. The cops were extremely pissed at our driver and it looked like he was about to have the longest day of his poor life.

Until the ops manager uploaded our crash camera footage from the SUV. It clearly showed the cops making a left hand turn from the far right hand lane, even going so far as to swerve around and cut off a large truck that was beside him in the left hand lane. No turn signal, no lights, nothing. Just plain bad driving because some cops believe traffic safety laws don't apply to them.

The cops uncuffed our driver and let him go. And they didn't seem too pleased about it.

That one crash cam paid for every camera in the fleet that day.

Oh, and we ordered a brand new SUV, courtesy of the LAPD.


And this is why police officers hate cameras. Because they'd be soooo good at proving in court who the real criminals are. It's very, very sad that we all know this and don't make more of a push to get all police/police cars outfitted with cameras.
 
2014-05-01 02:51:23 AM  

CruiserTwelve: fnordfocus: Qualified immunity pretty much guarantees that an Officer can never be held liable for anything he does on duty.

That's not how qualified immunity works.


Uh huh...
 
2014-05-01 02:52:24 AM  

bullsballs: I find it surprising that cops don't develop sudden lead aneurysm...

As often as we hear about this 'blue wall' and 'blue brotherhood'
keeping drug dealers, thieves, and murderers on the force, while
citizens die or are thrown in prison for trumped up charges, the
citizens need to take back the law that the 'police' have corrupted.

What good is a police force that condones and encourages such
corruption?


The megabankers are happy. What more do you want?
 
2014-05-01 02:54:06 AM  

The Southern Dandy: Wait, why am I proud of my country, again?


We've got Utahraptors?
 
2014-05-01 02:59:16 AM  

RoxtarRyan: And this is why police officers have such a bad rap. Another situation where coworkers cover them, and so does the court system.


It's a lot the court system. You can biatch all you want about the bad cops protecting their own (and you should); but it's the DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S office that investigates and ultimately charges police who commit crimes, and they (at least here in L.A.) are very very lax about doing both.

And lest you think "Oh, the mean cops are threatening the good DAs with their gunz and muscle" let me assure you that the DA is the one office that could shut down the LAPD...if they chose to. The LA DAs office and the LAPD are so cozy with each other and incestuous with each other, they make West Virginia hillbillies look like the Montagues and Capulets. It is appalling, how little the DAs office does to rein in dirty cops; and they are more than happy to let people blame "those bad cops protecting their own" knowing full well that it is THEIR job to investigate and THEIR job to prosecute...and they choose not to.

No DA in my memory ever even tried to campaign on a "I'm going to investigate the local police departments," platform, even so far as could be shot down by police chiefs; its really revolting and needs to be addressed.
 
2014-05-01 03:22:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: RoxtarRyan: And this is why police officers have such a bad rap. Another situation where coworkers cover them, and so does the court system.

It's a lot the court system. You can biatch all you want about the bad cops protecting their own (and you should); but it's the DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S office that investigates and ultimately charges police who commit crimes, and they (at least here in L.A.) are very very lax about doing both.

And lest you think "Oh, the mean cops are threatening the good DAs with their gunz and muscle" let me assure you that the DA is the one office that could shut down the LAPD...if they chose to. The LA DAs office and the LAPD are so cozy with each other and incestuous with each other, they make West Virginia hillbillies look like the Montagues and Capulets. It is appalling, how little the DAs office does to rein in dirty cops; and they are more than happy to let people blame "those bad cops protecting their own" knowing full well that it is THEIR job to investigate and THEIR job to prosecute...and they choose not to.

No DA in my memory ever even tried to campaign on a "I'm going to investigate the local police departments," platform, even so far as could be shot down by police chiefs; its really revolting and needs to be addressed.


The problem lies in the fact that the DA's office is reliant on the police agencies to prosecute cases and DA's as politicians are reliant on police associations for election.  No police cooperation, no case and no campaign funds.  Police always get to mark their arrest as being made and case closed for their purposes, but the DA will get dinged when his conviction rate goes down if he can't do anything with the case.  They most likely don't want corrupt cops anymore than anyone else, but they can't exactly go digging without roughing feathers and potentially creating issues for everyone at the office. Besides, No DA would win office focusing on a cleaning up the police campaign, because too many voters have a positive opinion of police and want the DA to focus on putting away "bad guys".   Attacking police corruption in your campaign is a sure way to have an opponent be funded by the local police protection league and associate and have flyers and adds touting your soft on crime positions and the police endorsing someone else.
 
2014-05-01 03:37:03 AM  

Daedalus27: Gyrfalcon: RoxtarRyan: And this is why police officers have such a bad rap. Another situation where coworkers cover them, and so does the court system.

It's a lot the court system. You can biatch all you want about the bad cops protecting their own (and you should); but it's the DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S office that investigates and ultimately charges police who commit crimes, and they (at least here in L.A.) are very very lax about doing both.

And lest you think "Oh, the mean cops are threatening the good DAs with their gunz and muscle" let me assure you that the DA is the one office that could shut down the LAPD...if they chose to. The LA DAs office and the LAPD are so cozy with each other and incestuous with each other, they make West Virginia hillbillies look like the Montagues and Capulets. It is appalling, how little the DAs office does to rein in dirty cops; and they are more than happy to let people blame "those bad cops protecting their own" knowing full well that it is THEIR job to investigate and THEIR job to prosecute...and they choose not to.

No DA in my memory ever even tried to campaign on a "I'm going to investigate the local police departments," platform, even so far as could be shot down by police chiefs; its really revolting and needs to be addressed.

The problem lies in the fact that the DA's office is reliant on the police agencies to prosecute cases and DA's as politicians are reliant on police associations for election.  No police cooperation, no case and no campaign funds.  Police always get to mark their arrest as being made and case closed for their purposes, but the DA will get dinged when his conviction rate goes down if he can't do anything with the case.  They most likely don't want corrupt cops anymore than anyone else, but they can't exactly go digging without roughing feathers and potentially creating issues for everyone at the office. Besides, No DA would win office focusing on a cleaning up the police campaign, because too many voter ...


What we need is for people to start treat "tough on crime" with due suspicion. People want easy fixes to complex problems and that allows corrupt leaders to pander to their lazy ignorance.
 
2014-05-01 03:40:12 AM  
I'm more worried about American cops that Muslim Terrorists.
 
2014-05-01 03:40:39 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Years ago I worked for a limousine company, and one of our drivers, in an SUV was involved in an accident with an LAPD patrol car in Hollywood. Our driver was okay, but the cops were injured seriously enough to warrant being put in an ambulance and sent to the hospital.

Our company owner and our ops manager went down to the accident site, where the cops were in the process of handcuffing our driver and throwing his ass in the slammer. The cops were extremely pissed at our driver and it looked like he was about to have the longest day of his poor life.

Until the ops manager uploaded our crash camera footage from the SUV. It clearly showed the cops making a left hand turn from the far right hand lane, even going so far as to swerve around and cut off a large truck that was beside him in the left hand lane. No turn signal, no lights, nothing. Just plain bad driving because some cops believe traffic safety laws don't apply to them.

The cops uncuffed our driver and let him go. And they didn't seem too pleased about it.

That one crash cam paid for every camera in the fleet that day.

Oh, and we ordered a brand new SUV, courtesy of the LAPD.


This story warms my heart.
 
2014-05-01 03:49:06 AM  

MattyFridays: Theaetetus: Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.

Car stopping distance at 50mph is 175 ft. I don't think a five foot displacement in the pedestrians made much of a difference.

Yes, but the intoxication makes all the difference.  It's 4:30 AM.  What color clothes were they wearing?  More details need to be known.


like, did he have a big block of cheese, and did he ask anyone to watch him do anything.
 
2014-05-01 03:51:19 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Rincewind53: lilbjorn: Why bother?  It's not like they would be convicted.

The cop likely wouldn't be convicted mainly because it would be almost impossible for a jury to find  beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was grossly negligent in order to get a conviction for negligent homicide. Just going over 53 MPH isn't enough to prove gross negligence, especially if their crime scene reconstruction guys are correct (taking their word at it, for what that's worth) that the two people who got hit were intoxicated and crossing about five feet in front of the crosswalk.

However, in civil court, I'm fairly sure the families will be able to extract a hefty penalty.


I wonder if the prosecution would reach that conclusion and exercise their discretion in the same way if a speeding car driven by Ms Delgadillo had run over and killed one off-duty cop and injured another when the pair ventured slightly outside the crosswalk during a late-night stroll home from the bar through a low-traffic area. Surely the DA wouldn't charge her with *anything*. Not negligent homicide, not vehicular manslaughter...nothing.

And yes, extracting a hefty penalty from the taxpayers does sound like quite a price for the officer not to pay.


You can't just pop someone else in the drivers seat because this person was a police officer so he had a duty to be responding to crimes and behaving differently than a simple member of the public.  That fact is the critical one in this case. So instead of saying if the roles were reversed, say it was a private citizen on private citizen collision with similar facts.

If it was Jonathan Hamm, construction worker, driving then yes, he would be facing charges, but probably not what you would think. As they were speeding well over the limit that is negligence and someone died so you could expect to see a felony vehicular manslaughter charge to start with.  However given the time of day, potential lighting issues, the fact that they were near but maybe outside the sidewalk, the victims were drunk so may have quickly stumbled into the street, whatever the PD/defense attorney can throw out there, those mitigating factors push the case towards either being a misdemeanor with small jail time, or a felony suspended sentence with no jail time and significant probation.  Given AB109, vehicular manslaughter is a non-serious and non-violent offense so that any sentence would be marginal given jail overcrowding I would lean toward the felony and hope they fark up again so we can violate them.  Now, not to sound too ghoulish, but the victims should be thankful that they were hit by the police and not a private citizen, because citizen Jonathan Hamm has few assets, while Alameda county has plenty and will be eager to resolve this.
 
2014-05-01 04:04:58 AM  

you are a puppet: Deputy Jonathan Hamm was traveling above the speed limit in a marked Dodge Charger near Mission Boulevard and Cherry Way in the unincorporated Cherryland neighborhood about 4:30 a.m. April 19, 2013, when he hit 38-year-old Valdemar Flores-Rosas of Hayward and Delia Delgadillo,

You might say he was...driving like a madman


I wonder how often he hears pig jokes?
 
2014-05-01 04:12:11 AM  
I can only hope that when I'm eventually killed by the government it's in a way that my family will be able to sue for a large amount of money then throw a huge party in my honor.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report