Felony Friday: Cop Replies To Email While Driving And Kills Man, Will Not Face Charges
Prosecutors in California have declined to file charges against a sheriff’s deputy who struck and killed Milton Olin. Olin was a sixty-five-year-old prominent entertainment attorney and former chief operating officer of the online file-sharing service Napster.Deputy Andrew Wood was distracted by his mobile digital computer and he allowed his patrol car to drift into the bike lane where he struck and killed the bike riding Olin.From the Daily Mail Online:
Prosecutors said in a letter released Wednesday and cited by Los Angeles Daily News that because Wood was acting within the course of his duties when typing into his computer, criminal charges are not warranted.Under the law, law enforcement officials are allowed to use electronic wireless devices while carrying out their duties.The victim’s family have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department and accused Wood of negligence.Olin’s loved ones also started an online petition on Change.org demanding that charges be brought against the deputy. So far, more than 67,000 people have signed.Milton Olin, a married father of two, was riding his bike in the 22400 block of Mulholland Highway at around 1pm on December 8, 2013, when Deputy Wood's patrol car slammed into him.
Talk about a double standard. If a normal citizen had committed the identical act that was committed by Deputy Andrew Wood, they would surely receive a long prison sentence. But in cop world, prosecutors will do whatever it takes to avoid holding cops accountable for their mistakes.There are a couple of issues to unwrap here. First, let’s examine the map below.
The map shows which states have texting bans and how they are enforced. If we look at California, where the above fatality occurred, we see that it is illegal in California to text while driving and it is illegal to talk on a handheld device while driving. Apparently, if you are a police officer these laws do not apply to you. This is a problem for a society that claims to follow the rule of law; there cannot be a class of people who operate “above the law.”There is another aspect to this case that is important to understand. The “no texting while driving” law is an infringement on individual rights. Would people accept a “no eating sandwiches while driving law” or “no driving with less than four hours sleep law”? Of course they wouldn’t. These are pre-crime laws that punish offenders for a “crime” that may occur, because their behavior is high risk.In a more free society, blanket pre-crime laws such as this would be wiped off the books. At the same time, private property owners and the operators of roads could set their own rules on things such as speed limits, driving under the influence, and even texting. The difference is that these rules would be agreed to in advance by users of the roads, not summarily applied to everyone who drives in an arbitrary jurisdiction.In this instance the officer should at least be held accountable to the law that he has been tasked with enforcing,Without any texting laws in place, the officer would still be held accountable for the death of the bicyclist if the victim’s family desired to press charges. The act of texting and driving could still be utilized as evidence in order to prove negligence and culpability on the part of the deputy, even without a texting law being on the books.To summarize, it is important that police officers are not placed above the law. But it is equally important that the legal process provide justice to the victim’s family by way of financial payments or time served by the deputy, if it is proven that the deputy bears responsibility.Check out our past editions of Felony Friday!The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
