Charges rec'd in death of 2 NorCal cyclists

carlfogel@comcast.net

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:51:45 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article
><55fde9f7-ac11-4b7f-9fd4-ec54c9a7d843@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 9, 5:41*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...may08/may10news
>> >
>> > You will remember this as the incident when the (literal) sleeping
>> > policeman mowed down two cyclists on the other side of the road. Likely
>> > charge against the county deputy would be vehicular manslaughter.
>>
>> Charges filed today:
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...L11CBFJ.DTL&tsp
>=1
>
>"Misdemeanor manslaughter"?
>
>I'm still a bit torn by the nature of this whole case. But I am now
>newly introduced to the idea that you can kill two people through a
>criminally negligent act, but it's not a big crime.
>
>I know, I know, misdemeanor versus felony in the US is mostly a
>distinction in the jail sentence length, and I don't think it was ever
>likely they were going to throw this guy in jail for more than a year,
>but even reasonable incongruities often pique my fancy.
>
>And of course, the victims, regardless of subsequent outcomes, remain
>dead.

Dear Ryan,

It probably falls under Bierce's second category:

HOMICIDE, n. The slaying of one human being by another. There are
four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and
praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain
whether he fell by one kind or another--the classification is for
advantage of the lawyers.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Tom Kunich

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE2700.00514220062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article
> <55fde9f7-ac11-4b7f-9fd4-ec54c9a7d843@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Charges filed today:
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1CBFJ.DTL&tsp=1
>
> "Misdemeanor manslaughter"?
>
> I'm still a bit torn by the nature of this whole case. But I am now
> newly introduced to the idea that you can kill two people through a
> criminally negligent act, but it's not a big crime.

It IS a big crime. But the important thing is this - he didn't have any
drugs or alcohol in his system. He fell asleep at the wheel. I'm certainly
not forgiving the asshole but the fact is that you can't really put a cop
behind bars unless he did something purposefully wrong.

Michael Press

In article
<508c68f4-1c4d-4d5f-a31e-1e886754765e@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:

> On Jun 20, 1:51*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <55fde9f7-ac11-4b7f-9fd4-ec54c9a7d...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > *Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 9, 5:41*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...may08/may10news
> >
> > > > You will remember this as the incident when the (literal) sleeping
> > > > policeman mowed down two cyclists on the other side of the road. Likely
> > > > charge against the county deputy would be vehicular manslaughter.
> >
> > > Charges filed today:
> > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...06/19/BAIL11CBF...
> >
> > =1
> >
> > "Misdemeanor manslaughter"?
> >
> > I'm still a bit torn by the nature of this whole case. But I am now
> > newly introduced to the idea that you can kill two people through a
> > criminally negligent act, but it's not a big crime.
> >
> > I know, I know, misdemeanor versus felony in the US is mostly a
> > distinction in the jail sentence length, and I don't think it was ever
> > likely they were going to throw this guy in jail for more than a year,
> > but even reasonable incongruities often pique my fancy.
> >
> > And of course, the victims, regardless of subsequent outcomes, remain
> > dead.
>
> 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'.

Mostly nobody is deterred by prospective punishment.
People are only deterred by meditating on the consequences
of their actions on their own well-being, and plenty of
people do not do that.

--
Michael Press

Tim McNamara

In article <9IednZgNPq564cHVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-DE2700.00514220062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > In article
> > <55fde9f7-ac11-4b7f-9fd4-ec54c9a7d843@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Charges filed today:
> >> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...8/06/19/BAIL11C
> >> BFJ.DTL& tsp=1
> >
> > "Misdemeanor manslaughter"?
> >
> > I'm still a bit torn by the nature of this whole case. But I am now
> > newly introduced to the idea that you can kill two people through a
> > criminally negligent act, but it's not a big crime.
>
> It IS a big crime. But the important thing is this - he didn't have
> any drugs or alcohol in his system. He fell asleep at the wheel. I'm
> certainly not forgiving the asshole but the fact is that you can't
> really put a cop behind bars unless he did something purposefully
> wrong.

He got behind the wheel without adequate sleep. Not any different than
getting behind the wheel without adequate time since your last drink.

Qui si parla Campagnolo

On Jun 20, 8:52*am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Qui si parla Campagnolo
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> 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.
>
> However, even with motor vehicle to motor vehicle, I've rarely seen
> auto related fatalities result in serious charges. It's almost always
> "vehicular manslaughter" which rarely includes jail time. Whether it
> should or not, I don't know. These cases are typically true
> "accidents" and if there is no evidence of intent or outright
> negligent behavior, then I think the lesser charge might be right.
>
> Whether or not he or the department is negligent for the long shifts
> officers in many other states are allowed and encouraged to work to
> drive up their pay, that's another argument.

Tom Kunich

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-4AF1CF.23504520062008@news.iphouse.com...
>
> 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?

Tim McNamara

In article <RcGdnT85krGDYMHVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-4AF1CF.23504520062008@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> > 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.

Tim McNamara

In article
<d992db8e-008f-4223-868c-98dc67ab6bb8@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:

> On Jun 20, 8:52*am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Qui si parla Campagnolo
> >
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> 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.

> > However, even with motor vehicle to motor vehicle, I've rarely seen
> > auto related fatalities result in serious charges. It's almost
> > always "vehicular manslaughter" which rarely includes jail time.

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.

> > Whether it should or not, I don't know. These cases are typically
> > true "accidents" and if there is no evidence of intent or outright
> > negligent behavior, then I think the lesser charge might be right.
> >
> > Whether or not he or the department is negligent for the long
> > shifts officers in many other states are allowed and encouraged to
> > work to drive up their pay, that's another argument.

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.

Tom Kunich

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-ED009E.13351021062008@news.iphouse.com...
> In article
> <d992db8e-008f-4223-868c-98dc67ab6bb8@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 20, 8:52 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Qui si parla Campagnolo
>> >
>> > <pe...@vecchios.com> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

duh

On Jun 21, 11:51*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I believe that is what Club Fed is for.

Jay Beattie

On Jun 21, 11:30*am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <RcGdnT85krGDYMHVnZ2dnUVZ_uLin...@earthlink.com>,
> *"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> >news:timmcn-4AF1CF.23504520062008@news.iphouse.com...
>
> > > 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 <9tSdnaGO_PoF0MDVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-ED009E.13351021062008@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article
> > <d992db8e-008f-4223-868c-98dc67ab6bb8@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 8:52 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Qui si parla
> >> > Campagnolo
> >> >
> >> > <pe...@vecchios.com> 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" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-4A6E8A.23001121062008@news.iphouse.com...
>
> 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 <hKmdna5CwvrF08PVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-4A6E8A.23001121062008@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> > 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.