digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at latimes.com

Man Sentenced In Deputy's Freeway Stove Death

latimes.com — Cole Allen Wilkins receives 26 years to life in prison in the death of a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy killed while swerving to avoid a stove that had fallen from his pickup.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • joltcola, on 07/12/2008, -6/+75description seems a little misleading, the guy had just stolen the stove.
    • 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.
      • twistlogic, on 07/12/2008, -8/+6The description is NOT accurate in that it leaves out a key fact that explains the sentencing. In California, the death penalty can be sought when the crime meets criteria for "Special Circumstances". Whether you agree with California law or not (personally, I think it's Draconian), the death penalty can be applied when death is a direct result of actions taken in the commission of a felony. This can INCLUDE the accidental death of your own partner in crime! Is fleeing the scene of a crime with stolen goods, or transporting stolen goods later on, part of the commission of the felony? If so, then this guy could have gotten the death penalty if ANYONE died, not just a police officer.

        Debating the fairness of the death penalty is a completely different topic. But the fact that this guy did NOT get the death penalty -that it wasn't even sought, even though it could have been, argues against the idea that this was over-aggressive prosecution just because the victim was a cop (this DOES happen, but not in this case). There was only one death "penalty" here ...meted out to a MOTORIST who just happened to be a cop.

        Be glad it wasn't you.
      • 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.
      • 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.
      • 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.
    • 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 *****.
      • 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.
      • 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 ...
      • 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.
      • mcquitty, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2To me, in reading the article, he knew about the robbery and gave permission to use his car in the commission of the crime. Does it require sentencing for the murder? No, but it does make him an accomplice.
    • 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.
      • acknotSW, on 07/13/2008, -3/+2Sometimes when you behave like an ***** (stealing things), bad stuff happens to you. I don't have a lot of sympathy for assholes.
      • mcquitty, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2There was a story of a motorcyclist in Florida not too long ago (maybe a year or two ago). He was racing a Porsche, I believe, down the interstate. A highway patrol officer decides to pursue after witnessing the race. He was stopped in the middle of the road and turned around to chase someone at speeds well over 100 MPH.

        Long story short, the officer's tire failed at the high speeds. He died in the accident. The guy on the motorcycle was charged and sentenced for killing the officer.

        Happens all the time.
      • thestranger, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4acknotSW: Even stupid ***** deserve to be treated fairly and justly in the court of law.
      • dragnonfly310, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1mcquitty, what happened in your story is BS too.
      • NachoBusiness, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1The fact that he was committing a crime probably contributed to the accident, though. If you're on the run you're less likely to secure the stuff in your truck properly, and that seems to have made all the difference here. Then he gave false information, again probably because of the criminal nature of what he had done before even getting on the freeway.

        It's true that this could have happened even if the guy hadn't been a criminal who stole the stove, but the fact that he was still in the middle of committing a crime contributed to the death of the deputy.

        That said, debris in the road can be really scary. I once saw a large ladder fly off a work van and land in the middle of a 5-lane expressway... about 300' ahead of me but in another lane. Still, it was frightening... when everyone's going 70mph things really can turn deadly fast since there's so little reaction time.
    • chaos7, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1even if that's true, his punishment is still wrong
  • Plower, on 07/12/2008, -16/+4My tax dollars finding their way to good use....
    • ralphodog, on 07/13/2008, -3/+1I couldn't agree more, I'm only saddened that this scum has a chance to get out in his lifetime.
      • Volaitle86, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1are u ***** serious? Because he stole a ***** stove?
  • 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.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 07/13/2008, -13/+4He was in pursuit because the guy HAD JUST STOLEN THE STOVE.

      Maybe you should read the article before you comment.

      However, 26 to life seems a little unjust for an accidental 'murder', felony robbery or no felony.
      • 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."
      • kpmc, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Is there such a crime as an 'accidental murder' in the US?

        In english law there must be 'mens rea' and 'actus reus' (guilty mind and guilty act) to be found guilty of any major crime.

        Doesn't work for parking tickets sadly.
      • EvilFerret, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5"Is there such a crime as an 'accidental murder' in the US?"

        Yup, it's called manslaughter.
    • 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.
    • Scully1981, on 07/13/2008, -2/+1That's nothing! Sometimes the police even have to break the speed limit to catch criminals!
  • 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?
    • yarayara, on 07/12/2008, -7/+1its not jail, it is a dead penalty sentence!
    • 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.
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/13/2008, -8/+1Poor little *****-stable....
    • ralphodog, on 07/13/2008, -3/+1How is this unusual? The prosecutors around my area of the country charge felony murder whenever it's applicable. This is how it's meant to be applied.

      Edit: The point of the law is that he forfeited any claim to an accident when he committed the first felony. I'm sure you would not be defending somebody if they got sloppy during a robbery and accidentally killed one of your loved ones.
    • 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.
      • writie, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Theft and reckless driving, perhaps. It's a horrible accident, but 26 years for murder when he didn't even realise what happened seems to be stretching the definition of justice.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • BeyondGoodNEvil, 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.
  • Detry, on 07/12/2008, -8/+55How the hell can you get convicted for murder if there is no intent? This guy got burnt...
    • 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."
      • 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?
      • buddhistMonkey, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1@thestranger: Try "transportation of stolen property."
  • richiewrt, on 07/12/2008, -24/+12Read the article people. The man killed someone in the commission of a felony. Had the man not been out stealing appliances, the officer would still be alive. Sounds like a fair sentence to me.
    • 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.
    • 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.
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/13/2008, -2/+1I stopped reading when you said:
        "This 'human effect' is better known as a bias, or emotional attachment, etc."
        And dugg you down.

        That "human effect" as you call it isn't bias or emotional attachment.. its COMMON SENSE. That is what has been stripped out of the legal system.
        Had someone used COMMON SENSE in this case, it would have been felony manslaughter, but instead they used bias and emotional attachment (guy was responsible for the death of a cop) and charged him with murder.
    • Volaitle86, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1douche alert
  • 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.
    • aladrin, on 07/13/2008, -8/+4No, it was 'enhanced' because he was committing a crime at the time. It would have been the same if it was a citizen and not a cop.
    • marcoslee, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Okay, look at it this way: 15 years for manslaughter and 11 years for burglary, failure to stop at a fatal traffic collision, leaving the scene of a fatal traffic collision, failure to report a fatal traffic collision to police, obstructing a police investigation by providing a false name, and driving with an unsecured load. Feel better about the sentence now?
  • 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.
  • Rotzooi, on 07/12/2008, -3/+33The evidence was cooked!

    /bury me
  • 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.
    • EvilFerret, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1I agree. Why wasn't the officer aware that a huge cement truck was driving right next to him? It's possible the stove may have killed him anyways, but I'd rather take my chances with that rather than swerving into a cement truck on a highway.
    • 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.
    • greevar, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1duplicate comment.
  • DaDrake, on 07/12/2008, -21/+13I think justice was served here. If you commit a felony and someone dies, it is your fault. You forced law enforcement to act and place their lives at risk. Just because the criminal didn't plan for this to happen doesn't mean he isn't responsible. He took another person's life... and in my book, murder always deserves life in prison unless if there were significant mitigating circumstances (like when the victim wasn't completely innocent... obviously this police officer was innocent).
    • 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.
      • richiewrt, on 07/12/2008, -5/+3The cop didn't stop because he was under a freaking cement truck.
      • avs5221, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2The cop was on his way to work, ie off-duty. Second of all, if you'd read the article, you'd know that two other cars hit the stove before the deputy had to swerve to avoid it. He wasn't tailgating.

        A motorist made fair use of citizen's arrest once he saw another car CRUSHED due to this man's ignorance. I'm sure the deputy would have pulled him over in due course had he not been killed....
    • sockpuppets, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Reading comprehension FTW.
    • 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?
      • acknotSW, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2I'm not a laywer, but I would assume that if stealing the stove was a felony, then transporting the stolen stove would also be a felony.
      • richiewrt, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1And yes, in most places, the transportation and possession of stolen property is a felony.
    • GoatMonkey2112, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2What if the stove was stolen 20 years ago and he was just moving it to a new house, would that still be in the process of committing a felony?

      He was guilty of improperly securing the stove to the truck at that point. If he was trying to evade the police at the time, then they should charge him with murder.
    • dcaveney, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2The officer wasn't persuing him at the time, he was just on his way to work like everybody else.
  • 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.
    • ralphodog, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1He wasn't convicted of the murder you're thinking of, read the article then try again.
  • sockpuppets, on 07/13/2008, -1/+4So was the stove damaged?
  • 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!
  • AsylumAleikum, on 07/13/2008, -12/+1126 to life for accidentally killing a pig?
  • StolenLamp, on 07/13/2008, -3/+5Just a little ***** up...
  • funkymoose, on 07/13/2008, -10/+5What amazes me is that any time a cop gets a slight bump in the system it's a front page digg news story every time. When a hardcore criminal does it, it goes unnoticed, probably because it happens so many times everyday. It gives people a false sense that cops are constantly getting the upper hand on people. As a result many of the people on Digg have a warped view on the matter.
    • JustinHopewell, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Whether it happens to cops a few times, or hardcore criminals many times, is any time a right time to bend the rules of the legal system like this?
  • yourlifeisdumb, on 07/13/2008, -2/+5Looking like K-Fed probably didn't do him any favours.
  • edebolt, on 07/13/2008, -2/+4I would vote for manslaughter over murder but would want to see his criminal record before becoming up in arms. If this guy was serial offender meth head then makes sense. He also sounds like he was obstructing justice and trying to flee the scene. If this was a law abiding driver who made a mistake then probably a much more lenient punishment with a suspended sentence.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • aladrin, on 07/13/2008, -2/+1He responsible for the death because if he hadn't been stealing the stove, nobody would have died.

      If I drop a stove off the empire state building, and barely miss 2 people hanging out windows on the way down, and a 3rd at a lower level gets killed, it's still my fault! I wasn't intending to kill anyone, just to drop a stove from a high building. But what I did was deadly and indeed, killed someone.
      • Kitchenfire, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Your analogy is completely flawed in so many ways. This guy was simply driving down the freeway. That's it. What he had stolen beforehand has no relevance. He did not intentionally release a 100 pound cube of steel into the path of anyone. It was an accident that could have happened in billions of situations involving someone hauling anything heavy.
    • dewright23, on 07/13/2008, -1/+0Yes, several other people swerved to avoid the stove. But the way the article reads, the officer did not die from striking the stove. A cement truck swerved to avoid the stove and crushed the officer. The officer was not reckless nor did anything else that may have caused his death.
  • lajaw, 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.
    • Ductapemaster, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1They really do need those classes...most teenagers around here drive better than the cops do! It's the "I'm am the law so I can do whatever the ***** I want" mentality that makes em do it...
  • laserblazer, on 07/13/2008, -5/+8The stove that cooked a pig.
  • EverTheCynic, on 07/13/2008, -3/+4While his sentence was a bit severe, some of the comments are ridiculous. I'm always amazed to discover how many badass 'pig'-hating rebels we have on Digg. You guys are obviously way too cool for school. You teach that law enforcement system a lesson.
    • ogre2112, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Maybe they hate pigs because as you put it, "the sentence was a bit severe". Maybe this happens too much. It seems to me if it happens too much, maybe there's a reason to hate them.

      • EverTheCynic, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Hate seems an awfully strong reaction, unless you yourself are a criminal and stand to be punished for it. And it's not as if the cop who was killed by an errant stove passed the criminal's sentence. Shouldn't you hate judges in this case? Personally, when I see a police officer, I don't immediately think "oh man how is that pig going to violate my rights today?" I'm sure I'd have a different mindset if I routinely engaged in illegal behavior, but then that would be my fault, not the cop's. Maybe I've just been lucky so far or maybe the anti-police sentiment is unwarranted in most cases. I think it's just popular to rail against authority figures and weak-willed people will do it in order to score cool points, whether it is justifiable or not. All I see most people saying in effect is "rah rah, Anarchy is cool." I'm sure they'd still dial 911 if ever the victim of a crime though.
      • JoshReflek, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1what ***** reasoning "Hate seems an awfully strong reaction, unless you yourself are a criminal"

        so all hatred of unjust occurances is invalid, because someone is obviously a criminal if they experience frustration with inconsistancies with the law's enforcement?

        your rationale is flawed at it's core.

        its not that 'all cops are bad' or that 'the entire system is fuct'......there certainly are good spirited, pure, kind, society serving individuals within our government, the problem is that it's so damned rare.


        so, in your routine non-illegal behaviour, you have never been unjustly harrased by a person in a position of power?

        never happened in school?
        never from a cop?

        then you are simply lucky, and dillusional that it doesnt happen frequently to other people.....did you even read the article?

        what qualifies you to discount people's actual life experiences by saying that this sentiment is unwarrented in most cases.....really? most cases? you read up on law, life and the trials n' tribulaitons of the common citizen?

        you're just an internet toughguy insulting people from behind your self admitted "ever the cynic" moniker.
        perhaps "Rebel H8r without a clue" would be more accurate.


        in regards to the article, the fault here lies with the harsh punishment of someone who injured a gang member.

        i imagine 'cool points' matter little when you're being railroaded or discriminated against.

        you make baseless attacks on any dissenters, calling them 'weak willed', and are too busy fighting against your own predrawn conclusions about anarchy being the sole driving force for a person disliking a system that is not fair or consistant due to gender, race, political and income biases.

        step out of your cave and into the real world for some much needed perspective.
    • JustinHopewell, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1I don't hate "pigs". I hate the system that is unfairly biased towards police officers. As I said in a comment below, they deserve extra protection since they put their life on the line for us, but this wasn't a good case for it.
  • 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.
  • dewright23, on 07/13/2008, -2/+3Why is everyone considering this unjust? Anytime a death results while committing a felony, murder charges apply. If he robbed a bank and a security guard chased him and was hit by a cement truck, it would have resulted in murder charges. Same reaoning applies here. If he was merely transporting the stove and it fell out, it would have been manslaughter. But he wasn't, he stole the equipment and was fleeing the scene of a crime.
    • rockingrhino, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3"Anytime a death results while committing a felony, murder charges apply."

      Actually that is not true. It depends on 1) there is a connecting state law to the actual crime or in most cases, 2) if the DA chooses to pursue that line. Normally a DA will choose the highest charges possible and plea it out to avoid a trial.

      "If he was merely transporting the stove and it fell out, it would have been manslaughter."
      No, it would have been an accidental death with the driver (or company) being criminally negligent.

      "But he wasn't, he stole the equipment and was fleeing the scene of a crime."
      Murder is about intent, not about death. Did this man intend to kill the police officer with this stove? If yes, then it is murder, if not then it manslaughter.
    • Testiculese, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2dewright, the cop wasn't chasing him. There was no 'fleeing the scene'. He just left. It fell out on his way home.
  • 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
  • sonofbc, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2It is no wonder the people have lost respect for the justice system. We must be able to expect fair unbiased consistent justice for all. If not and we do not change this we can expect more disregard for the law.
  • rockingrhino, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1This is all about a man with a lousy lawyer. What is missing from the article is what he was offered as a plea and how well it was argued in court. Was murder the only option for the jury? What is the counter arguement? How strong was the state's case?

    Alot of cases are decided on how good and well connected your lawyer actually is verses the actual merits of the case. A good lawyer would have ensured he would have gotten a much lower sentence, either a plea or better court case.
  • DestroyFascism, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2Miscarriage of justice duly served with much spite and revenge.
  • unclebuck, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Aaaaaand once again Digg users show their collective hatred against "the man". RTFA people. This guy was a total douche who was driving a pickup truck loaded with a bunch of ***** he had just stolen, tried to drive away from the scene of the accident, and gave false info when stopped by another driver. I'd say he got exactly what he deserved.
    • JustinHopewell, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Twenty-six years, though? Really?
    • greevar, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3The only crimes I see committed here are reckless driving, fleeing the scene of an accident, obstructing justice (giving a false identity), and theft. At worst, he should be charged for those crimes and have his license revoked.
    • lalindsey, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2He may have been a douche and a criminal but that doesn't not go hand-in-hand with being a murderer. Of course he did something wrong. Of course he should be punished for it. But 26 years? Not fair. That's just the system making an example of him.

      It was an accident regardless of the fact that he stole a bunch of stuff. Do you know HIS situation?

      And yes, he did give a false name. But could you blame him? He stole a bunch of *****, it fell out of is truck and caused a major highway accident where I'm sure it was apparent whoever was in the car smashed by the cement truck was dead because of his actions. He was scared. And he had every right to be as you can see from the result of his trial.

      I really hope someone picks up his case and appeals it. I'm not advocating thievery, or other criminal actions - but the sentence far out-weighs the crime.

      He committed a NON-VIOLENT crime, and an accident occurred AFTER he left the scene.

      Say he hadn't stolen the stove and he was just driving home from Home Depot and it fell out? The most he would have gotten was manslaughter, criminal negligence... DEFINITELY not 26 years for murder.
      • lalindsey, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Also just wanted to add I don't hate cops and I feel terrible for this officer's children and family - but taking away someone else's freedom (life) in revenge doesn't justify anything.
  • rushiku, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Oh goody, now lawyers have a precedent by which they can claim that _any_ illegal activity that results in an accidental death can be trumped up to murder.

    You forgot your turn signal when changing lanes, causing the moron behind you to pay attention to the road instead of his phone and subsequently blow his horn, causing the victim, who was climbing a ladder, to glance over and miss the next rung and fall to his death? Start doing anal stretching exercises, it'll help with the pain.

    In Soviet America, crime charges you!
    • PolishLogic, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a Rube Goldberg death machine.

      Also sounds like you're reaching.
      • Testiculese, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Sadly, he's not. Hang out with a few lawyers for as much time as you can stand.
      • rushiku, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1If it was that much of a stretch, Cole Allen Wilkins wouldn't be facing 26 years for stealing a stove.

        Now, I'm all for him getting 60 to 90 days for the 'heinous' crime of stove thievery, but 26 years because the stove happened to fall off his truck, which happened to cause a cement truck to overturn, which happened to crush a car, which happened to have a cop in it, who happened to die? Ludicrous.

        (and you thought _my_ comment was a Rube Goldberg...)
  • acknotSW, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Changing lanes without using a signal is not a felony.
  • chrysrobyn, on 07/13/2008, -2/+120 years for murder sounds like a gross miscarriage of justice. Makes me wonder what grand theft (stealing a stove) + obstructing justice (giving witnesses and investigators a false name) + manslaughter would have added up to.
  • 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.
  • wilywondr, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCaliforniaPrison ...
    "The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) is the California prison guards' union. Its lobbying efforts and campaign contributions have greatly facilitated the passage of legislation favorable to union members."
    The CCPOA is the biggest contributor to political campaigns in California. The CCPOA gives twice as much in political contributions as the California Teachers Association, yet it is one tenth its size.
    In 1998, the CCPOA gave over $2 million to Governor Gray Davis, $763,000 to the media, and over $100,000 to Proposition 184, the 3 Strikes law.
    Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions by the CCPOA have helped secure passage of numerous legislative bills favorable to union members, including bills that increase prison terms, member pay, and criminalize drug use and other victimless crimes.
  • JustinHopewell, on 07/13/2008, -2/+3Absolutely appalling. If the roles had been reversed, and this cop had stolen a stove on his day off, and it fell off his pickup and killed this guy, he would have been suspended, fired, or given a small jail sentence.

    Officers of the law should be given higher protections when it comes to their lives being threatened, as they put it on the line for us every day, but this is ridiculous! 26 years for an accidental killing? The guy didn't press a button on his dash to unleash the stove upon the driver behind him.
  • yosserhughes, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3"drove west in the fast lane of the 91 Freeway "

    There is no fast lane on the 91.
  • 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?
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1There was a delivery truck that was driving down a hill with bad brakes and killed a mother and child. The driver and the owner of the company got about 20 years in jail. So yeah, if the driver killed a non-cop he'd probably get the same sentence. The cop would not have died if the driver didnt steal the stove. This dudes greed killed someone, he should go to jail for a long time.
    • JoshReflek, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1i would wager the company owner was charged with contributory negligence as it was ultimately his responsibility to ensure the functioning brakes on his company truck.

      poorly fastening an object (stolen or not) and it coming lose from the truck is the danger caused by that driver.

      theft of the stove is a seperate charge and should not weigh the verdict or harshness of punishment for other aspects of the situation.

      rolling it all together like that makes it easier to justify harsher sentances when making a case that the guy was also a jerk / loser with ad hominem attacks.
      heck, why stop there! lets bring up his juvenile record and compare that to his economic status, political affiliation and well being of mind for a full attack on his character.


      "if the driver killed a non-cop he'd probably get the same sentance"
      what in the world makes you think this is accurate?
      this has never shown to be the case as far as any litigation ive heard of regarding officers / judges / politicians / lawyers / people in positions of power.

      he's getting a harsher sentance because its a privlidiged citizen, its easy to see.

      greed killed noone, if the other two drivers were able to swerve, what was the chp/cop doing that distracted him from surviving as well?

      it sounds like the officer is as much to blame for hitting the cement truck, as the guy who allowed the stove fall off the truck.
  • jogleby, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3That murder charge if someone dies while committing a felony can be a bitch. Several years ago in my home town, two men were breaking into houses. The police caught the first guy right away, and the second guy ran and ended up getting shot and killed by the police (I believe it was justified). The first guy was charge with first degree murder for the man's death even tho he was in the back of a police car at the time. I would have posted the link, but this was before the local paper went online. Sorry.
  • P5ycHo, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Would he have gotten the same charge if it wasn't a cop?
  • JustinTX, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2I guarantee the charge and the sentence only stuck because the victim was a cop.

    Notice the article said that two other motorists had hit the stove but were unhurt. It sounds to me like the cop made either a poor or at least unfortunate decision when he swerved. Believe me, I'd be much more concerned with a cement truck than a gas range.

    My condolences go out to his family but had any non-cop citizen died this would have been manslaughter... and probably not a major news story. Cops are not special. They are human just like the rest of us.
    • writie, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1I'd argue that cops are special, actually, but not that special.
  • valleyfever, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1How stupid! Regardless of whether the stove was stolen, or not, it was an accident. There was no intent to hurt or kill the stupid cop who was probably tailgating or breaking the law in some other way as most cops do. Accidents happen and it may suck when someone dies, but malicious prosecution is sick and wrong. Justice and revenge are two completely different concepts...
  • Volaitle86, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5Everyone remember, apparently a cop's life is more valuable than yours
  • silicongat, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Sad!
  • PolishLogic, on 07/13/2008, -4/+1Tough *****. At least he won't be endangering the public for the next 25 years.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.