Sign Petition: Prosecute LA Sheriff Who Killed Cyclist

I apologize for reposting. I think this petition (citizen action) deserves it's own thread.

Even If you are not normally inclined to do these things, please consider supporting this cause. Take just a couple of minutes to sign this petition. This practice of giving LEO's passes on practically every offense needs to stop. The DA's office needs to know that the public is watching, and holding them accountable for this blatant disregard of justice and that their favoritism and subversion of the law is not going unnoticed.

http://www.change.org/p/l-a-county-sheriff-s-department-district-attorney-prosecute-deputy-andrew-wood-for-texting-while-on-duty-and-causing-the-death-of-attorney-milton-olin-jr

Over 125 people signed on since yesterday. Only 1250 sigs needed to reach 75000. That's correct, nearly seventy five thousand people have signed this petition.

Signed. Cops should not be above the law, but right in the middle of it. If the deputy is let off the hook, they will continue to view bicyclists lives as disposable. He was on his computer, which meant he should have pulled over. Those cops park where ever they want come lunch time. They can do the same at computer time.

That officer flat out lied that his victim swerved into the road. The officer hadn't been watching where he was going and just flat out lied to cover his ass. No sympathy for the liar!

Or maybe we should let the courts decide like we do in every other case. Unless you desire double standards?

LegendLength said:

Or maybe we should let the courts decide like we do in every other case. Unless you desire double standards?

Click to expand...

The problem is with our system. The district attorney works hand in glove with the police, so its a conflict of interest for the DA to handle cases involving the police.

If I understand correctly, the DA has focused on an irrelevant detail and declared that since the officer was operating an electronic device, the deputy is exempt from responsibility for the trajectory of his potentially deadly weapon. The DA is simply refusing to apply the proper question of negligence. Why? Because he works with the police daily and any animosity from them will ruin his career.

This can''t be left to the courts because the DA isn't sending it there. The double standard has already been applied through the selectivity of the DA.

Check out this gov page:

http://oag.ca.gov/government/about
District Attorneys
California law gives discretionary authority to a locally elected prosecutor in filing criminal actions. In deciding whether to file charges, a district attorney must evaluate the likelihood that a jury, after weighing all the conflicting evidence, would find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." It may not be uncommon for members of the public to differ with the district attorney's determination, but the decision rests with the local prosecutor. The Attorney General's intervention is appropriate only where there is a demonstrated conflict of interest that would disqualify the district attorney from a particular case; or there is an obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The fact that an incident has created strong feelings within the community or the prosecutor's decision may be controversial or unpopular does not provide a basis for intervention by the Attorney General.

Click to expand...

Its human nature for the guilty to try to avoid accountability. Who do you think is responsible for the inclusion of that last nonessential sentence?

LegendLength said:

Or maybe we should let the courts decide like we do in every other case. Unless you desire double standards?

Click to expand...

That's exactly what the petitioners want. gogos initial statement was inflammatory, however, I agree with his subsequent breakdown of the situation. This is way more than a decision that is unpopular.

It is improper for the DA to derail the judicial system in this manner. Vehicular manslaughter is a felony, and as such, a Superior Court judge would decide if there is enough probable cause to prosecute the offender based on the evidence.

Apparently there has not even been a preliminary hearing on this matter, which would be the first course of action. But, the DA would be the one to bring the case before the court, and he refuses to do so.

My guess is that this is a political ploy on the part of the DA. He has maintained his buddy-buddy relationship with the Sheriffs Dept, at least in the short term. If it goes to the Attorney General, and the DAs hand is forced, he can say, "Sorry, guys, I tried, it's out of my hands now." Unfortunately, that doesn't mean he can't derail the process again by doing a poor job of presenting the case and evidence.

Shifting gears, if there is no responsible action on the part of the DA, he could find himself in serious trouble. From the page referenced below,

"Grand juries may charge public officials of "willful or corrupt misconduct in office."[23] The accusation is tried as if it were an indictment, and may not be dismissed for political or extra-legal motives.[23] The definition of "willful misconduct in office" is reserved for serious misconduct, that is, criminal behavior or "purposeful failure to carry out mandatory duties of office."[23][24]"

This can be accomplished by public action. This petition that is circulating could easily be forwarded to the Grand Jury of LA county, with the intent of indicting the DA.

"County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential. The protection of whistleblowers is one of the primary reasons for the confidential nature of the grand jury's work."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#California

Signed.

Nobody is above the law.

In theory.

gogo said:

The problem is with our system. The district attorney works hand in glove with the police, so its a conflict of interest for the DA to handle cases involving the police.

Click to expand...

If there is a problem with the system then you should be trying to change the system itself. First step would be proposing a new system that has less change of corruption between the DA & police.

The problem on focusing on this particular case, rather than proposing a general system change, is there are a *lot* of people who hate cops regardless of what they do. And so a petition like this will have a large percentage of 'cop haters' and therefore be basically ignored by people like me who will see it as very tainted.

I don't know the facts in this case very well and the officer could be guilty of massive negligence / murder etc.. All i know is there seems to be a huge double standard that gets played out repeatedly these days. For example during protests it is seen as ok if people push cops, spit on them, throw rocks at them etc. but the second a cop uses even the slightest bit of excessive force many people scream 'brutality'.

We can both agree there needs to be a strong system of accountability and oversight (who will police the police etc.). I just think the best way to get there is a have a civilized discussion about the system itself, rather than focusing on individual cases against cops while ignoring the other side of the equation.

gogo said:

The problem is with our system. The district attorney works hand in glove with the police, so its a conflict of interest

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's much worse than that. The conflict you cite is minor contrasted to that of the judge & prosecution for municipal cases. The judge *is* the prosecution, basically. It's so blatantly bad, there's no real attempt to hide it in my jurisdiction (and in nearby ones).
I can only personally attest to the conditions of the courts in metro Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri, USA)
because that's the only particular area I'm now acquainted with. However, I suspect courts all over the US are just as much a sham. It's sad. America is supposed to be the role model for liberty. But reality is just the opposite.

The shroud on the blind justice statue stands for cover up.

Hmm, three months to get 1070 signatures after it took only 1 day to get 125? This really stalled out.

Interesting what the public has learned about the DA's role in the process since this thread was started. Here's a letter to the editor in my local paper concerning a police homicide in our otherwise sleepy little city:

http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-hold-police-accountable
Letter: Hold police accountable

With police killings of unarmed teenagers in the news recently, we are reminded that one year ago an Ames policeman shot and killed a local teenager. In Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island, N.Y., local prosecutors manipulated grand juries to absolve policemen of responsibility, while in Ames our county attorney simply declared the murder justified. In all three cases, there was no public trial with its attendant public examination of the evidence, cross examination of witnesses and opportunity for appeal.

In the U.S. we expect law officers to be one of us, protecting us, but not above the law. A trigger-happy police force creates a big problem for everyone. When killings do not result in a trial, civic trust in our police and legal system erodes. Consider that if an ordinary citizen shoots someone, he or she is arrested and appears before a judge, but if a police officer shoots someone, he or she is generally not arrested. A local district attorney simply decides whether or not a charge should be brought. District attorneys, however, are on the same team as the police, so to speak, and they rarely bring charges against members of their own team. This system may be justified when killings occur in a shootout, but when multiple victims are unarmed, it becomes apparent that too often police are shooting first and thinking later.

What is a community to do if they feel the very people hired to protect them are too quick to resort to deadly force? One possibility is to vote out mayors and district attorneys who don’t hold the police accountable. Ames residents chose not to do this last November. Another is to keep up the public dialogue until our police see themselves as protectors, not assassins.

John Mayfield, Ames

Click to expand...

I think LegendLength is right, its time to encode in law the separation of common interest parties in matters of LE prosecution.

I'm not sure exactly what goes on behind the scenes at the Change.org site. I noticed the apparent deterioration of interest in the petition over time. I am not convinced that the published count on the site is accurate. I am only speculating, but it would not surprise me that social engineering would be incorporated to keep interest up by understating the signature count as the goal nears. They want as many signatures as possible, and people are much less likely to push the cart if it has already passed the finish line. In addition, people may be inclined to push harder as that line nears, i.e just a couple of hundred votes away. No direct knowledge, only speculating.

One change in law that might be explored would be to have these sorts of cases investigated only by the Feds. As I understand it, the only jurisdiction the Feds have now in these sorts of incidents are about Constitutional rights violations. There is still the problem of cops investigating cops, but the locals generally don't like the Feds and vice versa, so that is probably a good thing. You need investigators and courts that are working in completely different jurisdictions to even begin to approach impartiality.

In addition, I believe the ability to purchase insurance to cover litigation costs on the civil side should be limited. Why? Everyone would take this way more seriously if these instances had the ability to bankrupt an entire community. The police departments and city councils don't care about justice and due process, they just want to know how much it's going to cost. And it's not even their damned money. If you want people to do the right thing, usually you have to make it very painful for them to do the wrong thing. Bad acts>accountability>pain. Currently, the only way to hurt the bad actors is financially, because everything else is off the table.

Web search - Bill Janklow, then tell me "Feds" would make any difference? Bikers - both pedal & moto, don't seem to count for much.

Although we do "our part" to reduce, pollution, traffic congestion and energy requirements - to the general population we're just those "weirdos" who put our lives at risk in order to "ride" in bugs and bad weather.

That's a situation with a different variable. A bad act that actually reached trial. I do not agree with the sentencing. Just because Mr Janklow is perceived as a "good guy" shouldn't reduce his sentence (pain) down to a slap on the wrist. He killed someone as a direct consequence of his negligent acts. For the most part, we should leave those character based judgments to whomever he meets at the pearly gates.

It seems that we don't have a problem prosecuting politicians. It's pretty easy to get them in the cross hairs. It's LE that we're having trouble with.

It would be interesting to see any statistics regarding prosecution for vehicular manslaughter with variables cager, cyclist, or pedestrian as victim. You would have to exclude accidents that were DUI, because all of those get prosecuted. I know the public tends to discriminate against cyclists, but I would like to see whether or not that follows through the criminal process as well.

I do realize it's not the same but it's still the "man in power" getting away with murdering a brother/sister on 2 wheels.

LE is the largest and most dangerous "gang" in the world and good luck seeing one their own prosecuted.

Today, only 6 (six) more signatures to go, as reported at Change.org.

Now only 5 more signatures needed... best.