What is Digg?137 Comments
- sicntired, on 07/12/2008, -15/+131This isn't a prison sentence it's revenge from a vengeful system that is over reacting to the loss of a comrade.The police are the biggest gang in this country and god help you if you run afoul of any one of them.This was an overzealous prosecution to say the very least.Have they never heard of the concept of an Accident?
- joltcola, on 07/12/2008, -6/+76description seems a little misleading, the guy had just stolen the stove.
- jamessavik, on 07/12/2008, -4/+66Now that's excessive. There was no intent to kill- it should have been 2nd degree manslaughter 7-15 years. No doubt it was "enhanced" because a cop died.
- varaon, on 07/12/2008, -3/+60The definition of manslaughter exists for a reason. Distorting the definition of murder for vengeance is unacceptable.
The murder charge could be justified in, say, a high speed chase where the officer's life is being put in danger by pursuing the offender, but not in a traffic accident of which there are thousands each year. It could just as easily been anyone else, but because a police officer died, the sentence is harsher. - Detry, on 07/12/2008, -8/+55How the hell can you get convicted for murder if there is no intent? This guy got burnt...
- menwuur, on 07/12/2008, -9/+55His intentions were to steal a stove, not murder someone. The stove could have fell weather he stole it or not. 26 years for an accident?? People steal ***** every day, if this were to make sense then the penalty of stealing a stove would have to be 26 years due to the dangers/risk of it falling on cops. This is *****.
- ichbeineinrcg, on 07/12/2008, -1/+33If it hadn't been during the commission of a crime, and the dead person were a civilian, the guy would have walked away with a ticket.
Even during a crime, if the dead guy isn't Blue, this probably ends up as manslaughter.
If you don't think the fact the dead guy is a cop mattered here, you're a fool. - Rotzooi, on 07/12/2008, -3/+33The evidence was cooked!
/bury me - mikenomn, on 07/12/2008, -5/+33I think the description is accurate. Whether it was just stolen or not, the officer was killed while off-duty trying to avoid a stove in the middle of the road. The charge of first-degree murder seems a bit steep. Manslaughter, maybe...with an additional charge for the theft, but premeditated murder seems a bit off. The length of sentence seems fair though, considering the outcome of his negligence.
- burchie2, on 07/12/2008, -2/+25Well, you really can't convict the stove...
- nowsamsara, on 07/12/2008, -6/+28Ah. Police using the system for vengeance. Mmm. No doubt.
- Protoss, on 07/12/2008, -4/+26Trouble is he got charged with intent to kill when his original intent was to steal a damn stove.
- Ninh, on 07/12/2008, -2/+22Chances are the stove wouldn't have hurt as badly as the cement truck. While punishing the guy for driving with an unsecured (and stolen) load, lack of intent to cause the death of the victim (who might have made a better driviing decision that could have saved his life) does not warrant a murder charge.
- palewook, on 07/13/2008, -0/+18exactly. if this had been a "normal citizen, a non-cop, this guy would have gotten man slaughter and served a max of 5-10.
- bizkit00, on 07/13/2008, -0/+17irony:
"He was in pursuit"...
"Maybe you should read the article before you comment."
"Piquette, ... was at the wheel of his county-issued Crown Victoria, on his way to work." - overtoke, on 07/12/2008, -20/+37Sounds like the officer was following someone too closely. There are laws for that you know... Maybe he should get charged with his own murder.
- johndi, on 07/12/2008, -2/+18It is ***** and it is totally legal under our system. Here is an example that is even worse than this one. Ryan Holle is serving life in prison without parole for lending his car to a friend. It is called "felony murder" and you don't have to have any intent or even be aware of any criminal of others to be charged for it. All they have to do is come up with some lame ass "six degrees of separation" reason that an action of yours may or may not be related to a death somewhere. Civilized countries around the World have abolished this absurdity. It's time for America join the club.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html ... - pintomp3, on 07/13/2008, -0/+15no, but you can grill it until it asks for a lawyer.
- shotgunefx, on 07/13/2008, -0/+15No, it's not unjust for him to go to jail at all. His actions and negligence in the commission of a felony caused the death of an innocent person.
Personally, I think manslaughter would be more appropriate, I think murder is a far stretch, but to say he doesn't deserve to be punished is retarded. - masamunecyrus, on 07/13/2008, -0/+14I've always thought that people, in most cases, should be charged for the crimes they actually, knowingly, committed.
EDIT: Holy *****, after reading the article, this guy wasn't even running from the cops. He just happened to be driving on the freeway when the stove that he stole accidentally fell from his truck. And he didn't steal it from a house, he stole it from a construction site. Also, at least two other drivers actually hit the stove and were fine, but the deputy was unlucky and a cement truck happened to crush his car. It's like a man being sentenced for murder for the butterfly effect. - Alucard010, on 07/13/2008, -3/+17The only reason he got such a penalty is because it killed a cop. If the ACCIDENT had killed 3 civilians and no cops, the penalty would be much less severe. Don't you just love justice? America, ***** Yeah!
- buddhistMonkey, on 07/13/2008, -1/+12It's called felony murder, because the death occurred during the commission of a crime (Wilkins had stolen the stove). To your point, though, in this case it could more rightly be called "felony manslaughter."
- atomicnoodle, on 07/12/2008, -13/+23its completely unjust for him to have to go jail..seriously, wtf. if it had been a regular civilian i doubt the driver would have went to jail at all.
- localzuk, on 07/13/2008, -3/+13The way I look at it is this. The guy stole something, he then negligently shoved it on the back of a truck without securing it. Due to this, it fell from his truck and caused someone to swerve to avoid it which caused their death. First degree murder seems like a strange charge here, considering the court would have had to prove intent. Seems more like second degree murder or manslaughter.
- joltcola, on 07/12/2008, -0/+8i agree with you too. i think 26 years is way too much. but when i first read the description it made it seem like this guy was just driving down the road and got slammed with 26 years for no reason.
- du4l1ty, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7@johndi That looks like a living while black charge to me. I hate it when those things happen.
- IIAmusedII, on 07/13/2008, -2/+9If a cop had dropped a stove from his truck and it killed a civilian, you know damn well the cop wouldn't be doing time.
- inactive, on 07/13/2008, -2/+9Was the cop not able to drive? Why didn't he stop and put on his flashers and call someone to remove the stove? Was he following to close at too high a speed? Maybe he shouldn't of been driving at all. California cops must need defensive diving classes.
- jellygraph, on 07/13/2008, -2/+9In America, the fairness of someones conviction depends on who's in power. That's not justice. That's called revenge. It's sick. Had it been anyone other than a police officer, then the conviction would have been far less. Or how about when police officers accidentally kill pedestrians through reckless driving? They don't get any time for that. Only 2 weeks suspension. I don't want to be mad, but this is disgusting.
- ncrev, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7In HS my friend worked at a Burger King that was held up a gunpoint, a felony. The manager was taken in the back and ordered to open the safe while a gun was held to his head. Before he could open the safe the manager died of a heart attack.
Later, when caught, all the persons involved in the heist were charged with several crimes including murder. Their was no need to prove that the heart attack stemmed from the hold-up, and even the criminal who was simply driving the getaway car and never entered the store was charged with murder. The law being that someone dying during the commission of a felony is murder and there is no burden of intent placed on the prosecution.
It's the same application here. Yes, the fact that he was a police officer affects the degree of vigor with which the prosecution pursues the charges and seeks conviction. But had a civilian died and the police could trace the death to the commission of a felony I believe the same charge would have been brought. and since there is no burden of intent incumbent upon the prosecution it is possible it would have stuck as in the BK case. - ralphodog, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6Did you even read it? He was multiple cars behind, others had dodged the stove before him and he was the unlucky one who had a gigantic f-ing truck crush him when he tried to dodge it.
- thestranger, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6But was it technically during a felony? If one steals something from a store and is driving home afterward, you are not still "committing" a felony.
If this were true when would the committing of the felony ended? When he parked? When enter his home? Moved the stove? Installed it....used it? - fyngyrz, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7Oh, it's not unusual, ralphdog; we know it goes on all the time. It's just one more thing that makes the citizens not trust the system, because the system is unfair and unreasonable. When the system fails, people blame all manner of actors in the drama; the lawyers, the cops, etc.
Generally, I think its the legislation that enables such pathological behavior on the part of cops, lawyers, judges and juries that is the root of the problem (and consequently I personally blame the legislators), but in the end, the effect is the same:
The citizens don't trust the system because it repeatedly proves that it cannot be trusted to be fair (as in this case and many others); it repeatedly proves that justice doesn't mean the same thing for different classes of defendant (think about the telecomm companies, or OJ, or President Bush pardoning himself); and it repeatably demonstrates that things keep getting worse, not better.
This was an accident. Nothing more. Given the facts in the article, the guy deserved to be charged with theft. No more than that. The law itself is out of control, and sadly, that itself is not unusual.
Something else: The law typically requires that you be in control of your vehicle. This is the basis for the pair of assumptions (the other is that pedestrians usuallyhave the right of way) that taken together mean you shouldn't be running over people. The fact that the deputy had to swerve -- instead of stopping and turning on his lights to mark the hazard -- indicates to me that he wasn't allowing for adequate distance to remain in control of his vehicle for any general road hazard -- he didn't check for consequences before swerving out of his lane, he didn't allow for enough stopping distance, and that means it was *his* fault.
This guy was railroaded. No way around it. - Volaitle86, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5Everyone remember, apparently a cop's life is more valuable than yours
- Kitchenfire, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5He wasn't in the act of committing a felony, he was just driving down the freeway AFTER committing a felony. Does the guy have to make it from point A to point B before it ceases to be a felony?
- NoDisk, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5http://www.instantrimshot.com/
- EvilFerret, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5"Is there such a crime as an 'accidental murder' in the US?"
Yup, it's called manslaughter. - iceman0113, on 07/12/2008, -4/+9"Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who was crushed by a cement truck on the 91 Freeway after he swerved to avoid a stove that had fallen from the man's pickup." Partly on the fault of the deputy's stupidity for following way too closely. If the deputy had to swerve to avoid the stove, he was probably tailgating. Also, the thief had no intention of killing the deputy; the thief's sentence went up because the accident killed a cop. If this was just a citizen who died, then he would've gotten manslaughter, not a felony.
On top of that, "According to prosecutors, Wilkins did not stop until a motorist who was driving behind him when the stove fell flashed his lights and honked his horn." Why didn't the cop pull him over in the first place? A motorist pulled him over. - greevar, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4That's true. I'm not privy to the exact events of the accident, but it would be logical to assume that the cop died partly of his own stupidity for swerving into traffic instead of going for the ditch. When I went to driver's ed, they taught us not to swerve to avoid an accident because it is more likely to CAUSE an accident. It's better to just hit the brakes and come to a stop. If the cop was maintaining a safe following distance, he would have had ample time to stop. This whole thing wreaks of sensationalized vengeance.
- kirado4, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5so let me get this straight.. the cops swerves.. and another truck hits him.. surely the driver of the cement truck should also go to jail then.. the cop didn't have to swerve.. he caused his own death it seems.. unless the cement truck driver was responsible.. other people hit the stove and didn't die.. so he could've slowed just driven into it.. fishy outcome.. despite the guy having stolen the stove... stinks of double standards.. what happens when cops cause accidents and people die.. ? do they got to jail too?
- SIRBERUS, on 07/13/2008, -3/+7The main issue/problem with this that you are missing is that many hours have been spent by many men and women writing up black and white descriptions of what constitutes legal and illegal, as well as shades of illegality.
This is done so that we, as a society, can take as much of the 'human effect' out of the equation when trying to figure out if someone has violated the law or not. This 'human effect' is better known as a bias, or emotional attachment, etc.
From time to time, there will be a case (such as this one) where the bias and emotional aspect kicks in and people, such as yourself, think someone should be punished more harshly due to the circumstance of their situation. But, in reality, to allow a bias in this case potentially means more innocent people will be treated equally unfairly under the law down the road.
In this instance, even though the man had stolen the stove, and even if he was what someone may consider a bad person... he didn't act maliciously to kill the officer. He didn't try to kill the officer, nor did he push the stove out to kill the officer. What we need to look at is the action that killed the officer... not the circumstances which lead up to the officer dying, and since there was no direct intent to kill the officer, it should not be considered "murder". It is, at most, probably manslaughter.
Now, I'm not trying to take away from the fact that an officer of the law died due to actions from a criminal... I'm just trying to point out the fact that a criminal did not _kill_ the officer. A stove did. A stove that fell off the back of a vehicle, and took an officer's life.
I live in southern california and have been driving for about 8 years now. In my years on the road I have almost hit 3 ladders, a couch, and a rake on the freeways. What if I had hit one of those items, died, and the police were able to figure out who's car it fell off of. Should they be charged with murder? What if I was a cop?
In a nut shell... we have laws that specifically lay out circumstances that need to be met to reach a certain shade of illegality... this is not, by any means, murder. By calling it murder, the police/prosecutors are blatantly distorting the very laws they are supposed to protect and enforce. - Neiby, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4I don't think that sentence is fair at all. There was no intent to harm anyone physically. There's a huge difference between that and premeditated murder. Besides, there are people who actually do intentionally commit murder who don't end up getting that much time.
- Volaitle86, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4*****
- pintomp3, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5at least the guy won't get fried.
- thestranger, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4acknotSW: Even stupid ***** deserve to be treated fairly and justly in the court of law.
- NoDisk, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5"The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended. Thus, in a classic example, a poacher shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the bushes. Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even suspect his presence, the mens rea of the poaching is transferred to the actus reus of the killing."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
The question of how we execute justice is the real issue. Our legal system requires police officers. It requires, therefore, that there be people who are willing to die to protect the general public. In exchange, we give them power and privilege – some which are necessary to go about their duties, some which are merely tokens of societal respect. One of those tokens is the idea that the injury or death of a police officer (even an off-duty one) is prosecuted to the fullest, wildest, most extreme extent of the law, and that the punishment be as severe as possible. This provides a disincentive to injuring/killing police officers.
Thus we have the story in the article.
I don’t believe the convicted man earned 26 years. I don’t even believe he’s responsible for the death – several other people swerved without incident. But socially speaking, the right to brutal “justice” is something we have granted to our police. So what we’re really talking about is a casualty of that right. If we disagree with what results, we need to limit or retract the “right to brutal justice” either entirely, or to disinclude smaller activating crimes, such as theft. - darylyounge, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4Exactly!
- hcharger, on 07/13/2008, -1/+4 The problem with such incidents as this is the fact that a cop was killed instead of a normal ordinary citizen. What if the roles were reversed. What if that cop was chasing someone and he smashed into that fellow who just committed a felony and killed him. We all know the answer, but the system is so eager for revenge, not necessarily the crime.
I mean, why was the man stealing a stove? What kind of stove was it? Did the system screw this guy around where he needed a stove to heat his place because economic hardships forced him into it?
Face it, the system is responsible for alot of actions of its citizens, yet it goes unpunished just as the president of the United States can go unpunished for whatever felony he committs.
If this man was black he most likely would have received the death penalty. Justice is not equal to partiality. If some important person is killed the system will extract punishment according to status, that's the way its been and the way it always will be - inactive, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3atomicnoodle obviously didn't read the article before posting. He would have seen that the guy had stolen the stove, that other vehicles had hit the stove before the cop car swerved and was crushed by a cement truck.
- Aitese, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3I think the thing people who are bringing up the cop tailgating are forgetting is two other cars HIT the stove (not swerved) meaning the cop could have been in another lane altogether and had the thing instantly thrust into his path by a car that struck it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is