No charges for off-duty cop who killed 13-year-old girl with cruiser. Prosecutor says it doesn't matter if he was speeding

Originally published at: No charges for off-duty cop who killed 13-year-old girl with cruiser. Prosecutor says it doesn't matter if he was speeding. | Boing Boing


Not only does the survey not eliminate the possibility that he was speeding it eliminates the possibility that he wasn’t speeding.


Table Flip GIF


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

The pedestrian. 100% of the time in every situation, no exceptions.

The laws in most jurisdictions are pretty clear about this, which is why this is so maddening. Even though jaywalking is itself also a crime in many places, it’s still the driver’s fault if they hit someone. Always. It doesn’t matter if someone shouldn’t be there, or what they were doing in the street. Unless you’re a cop, apparently, and the victim is sufficiently discreditable.


Meme Reaction GIF by Robert E Blackmon

But I guess for some, it’s far more fun to victim blame… a dead 13 year old child… :rage:


“Back the blue; until it happens to youuuu…” It’s not funny.


As always, prosecutor will always suck up to the police regardless of what the law says.


As everyone else has pointed out, drivers have the duty of care, either way.

Yes it was. Even a cursory look at cars and stopping distances say that being ten miles over the speed limit will increase stopping distance. To be more specific he would have had about 30 extra feet of stopping distance at the low end (ten over) and over a hundred feet of stopping distance at the high end (20 over). I’ll leave calculating the impact force to someone with vehicle mass on hand, but it would also see a major increase, enough to be the difference between life and death. It takes it from around 1/3 to 50 or 75% chance of pedestrian death. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

His wrong was killing a human being, hers was engaging in use of unapproved substances on her own body.

Normally my ACAB temperament wins, but I think prosecuters are all too happy to treat murder by car as a non-offense. The fact that they were a cop just made them boost the effort a little more.


I read that as If the Public Wants Justice, You’ll Have to Get it Yourselves


I like carrying my phone on runs because drivers fear you hurling an object through their windshield, show more respect. I know the law doesn’t protect me.

1 Like

To “yes, and,” this, yes, and the justification that, well, he was speeding, but so does everyone else, is such bs.
Why don’t they use the same for the girl, “well, she’d had a bit of THC and alcohol, but so do all the other kids.”
:persevere: :sob: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:


In some jurisdictions, if the posted speed limit is above a certain value, usually 55mph, the pedestrian is not assumed to have the right of way. In this case, if he was going over 45, and that was 20 over the limit, she should have definitely had the right of way.


The fact that his own black box didn’t record anything should automatically mean he’s guilty. They should have to maintain their own tech and be responsible for it.


Well, in that case, excuse me while I go zip back and forth for a few hours in front of a police precint at 20mph over the speed limit…


the word “anyway” sure is doing a lot of work there


This, SO much this. Any time black boxes or body cams “don’t work” (and it should be required they work 24/7, on or off duty) it needs to be automatic proof of the cop’s guilt. Cops are given so much power that anything less is basically an open invitation for them to murder any time they feel like it.


Yep. Istm that people are misapplying the principle of right-of-way here. If the reporting on how this went down is accurate (possibly a big if), there may not have been much the driver could have done. Green light, 10:30 at night in December, may or may not have been much ambient light here.

Drivers have a duty of due care to avoid others in their path whether they’re there rightfully or not, if they can reasonably anticipate or perceive the danger of a crash, but that’s not the same as saying the victim (or her friend) had right-of-way when they ran out.

The driver speeding was a contributing factor as well, but not the deciding factor. Maybe somewhere in the range of 20% responsibility in my book? Relevant for civil proceeding but not enough to sustain a criminal charge, jmo.

I do not own a car and log a lot of cycling road miles every year and think about this stuff a lot, this is not just trifling opining on my part. Btw.

1 Like

about the circumstances?

If you kill a 13 year old girl - or anyone! ever! - YOU SHOULD NOT GET TO BE A FUCKING COP ANYMORE!

How is this even a question?


Exactly my point. They will look at it, would the accident have happened anyway without the traffic offense? If so, the driver is not at fault. Right of way is meaningless if the driver can’t see the pedestrian in time. I have had a very close call with a jaywalker that was African-black and dressed entirely in very dark colors–I couldn’t see him at 1 second when I knew he was there. The only reason he’s alive is I got a momentary flash when he narrowly avoided being hit by the vehicle in the next lane. I saw him in the headlight and stomped on the brakes–I knew he was in front of me but couldn’t find him. My hitting the brakes gave him enough time to get into the next lane.

While that’s about the extreme case the reality is high speed roads at night you’re not going to see inert obstacles in time to avoid hitting them. Everything that’s supposed to be there has retroreflectors, you’ll see it. Even during the day if somebody darts into the street in front of you you don’t have a chance. Remember what they taught you in driver’s training–it takes 4 seconds of travel distance to stop under good conditions. Anything that enters the road within those 4 seconds will get hit unless evasion is possible.