Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on November 18, 2010, 03:02:35 PM
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Officer-fined-_185-for-speeding-in-crash-that-paralyzed-boy-1597329-108773219.html
Pay $185, confess to speeding while off-duty on your way to your moonlight job and using the police cruiser to get there, get away with paralyzing a 14 year old boy.
Not fired.
Not prosecuted.
Not PERSONALLY culpable for the damages. The COUNTY paid $400k to the injured boy's family for hospital bills. Cokinos didn't pay a dime aside from his speeding violation.
-
When I first read this post, my risk manager side said "This seems to be outside the scope of his employment, I wonder why the county covered the civil liability".
I then read the article and saw that the officer was in uniform and driving his police cruiser, so there could be a reasonable presumption that he could be considered on-duty, and the employer is vicariously liable for his actions. But more importantly, by claiming he was 'on-duty', so to speak, the county's legal liability was limited by governmental immunity to $ 200,000 per claim. With the one claim of the child and the claim of the parents, it adds up to the $ 400,000 paid by the county. If they weren't shielded by the governmental immunity, the county would have paid much, much more. So from the county's perspective, it was a good decision to claim that they were responsible for the officer, even if he was off-duty and moonlighting. It kept down their costs, thus saving the taxpayers money. ;/
-
Not prosecuted.
hmmm
Cokinos, who was 23 at the time, was speeding at 56 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone when he struck Luis -- who was crossing Springtown Road in front of his home.
Seven months later in November, a Montgomery County District Court judge found Cokinos not guilty of negligent driving or contributing to an accident.
Cokinos then pleaded guilty to driving 26 miles-per-hour over the limit and he paid a $185 fine, including a $25 court fee.
A police investigation concluded that the boy would not have been hit had Cokinos been traveling at the speed limit, however.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Officer-fined-_185-for-speeding-in-crash-that-paralyzed-boy-1597329-108773219.html#ixzz15fSH43hK
-
Sorry, I meant "not convicted."
The cop went for a trial by judge rather than trial by jury.
The judge acquitted him, despite clear negligence (IMO). 56 in a 30 and smacking into a kid, while moonlighting in a patrol vehicle. The institution protecting its own.
-
trial by judge is pretty commonplace in those cases. is it your view he should be compelled to face a jury trial? that for some reason hes waived his right to choice there? and to a legal defense? the stories a bit sparse what was his defense? who was his lawyer? who was the judge? i know its the examiner but this is their home turf . any links to more details?
-
trial by judge is pretty commonplace in those cases.
Ummm . . . I wonder why?
One hand washes another. Judges, Prosecutors, and Cops all look out for one another.
Cokinos, who was 23 at the time, was speeding at 56 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone ...
Seven months later in November, a Montgomery County District Court judge found Cokinos not guilty of negligent driving or contributing to an accident.
HOW? He was doing almost double the speed limit! How can anyone look at this case and not conclude its a miscarriage of justice? I'd love the hear this scumbag of a judge's reasoning for why this cop isn't guilty of negligent driving and worse.
-
http://www.gazette.net/stories/050708/poolnew183547_32363.shtml
http://www.gazette.net/stories/11102010/nortnew214036_32535.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/baltimore/TL7T613KMI3OF8AGA/p17
last one has most info
-
Ummm . . . I wonder why?
One hand washes another. Judges, Prosecutors, and Cops all look out for one another.
HOW? He was doing almost double the speed limit! How can anyone look at this case and not conclude its a miscarriage of justice? I'd love the hear this scumbag of a judge's reasoning for why this cop isn't guilty of negligent driving and worse.
take the time to find out then don't count on the examiner
most traffic cases are judge trials in fact asking for a jury can cause some interesting machinations in the smaller cases.
-
I know I'll probably get flamed for asking this, but why didn't the kid look before he crossed the street?
Brad
-
I know I'll probably get flamed for asking this, but why didn't the kid look before he crossed the street?
Brad
Because the car was outside visual detection when he entered the street, but at twice the speed limit it rounded the corner faster than a reasonable person could get out of the way?
-
Because the car was outside visual detection when he entered the street, but at twice the speed limit it rounded the corner faster than a reasonable person could get out of the way?
thats a good guess you should work for balko
look at the picture of the site in the first gazette article i posted
http://www.gazette.net/images/2008_0507/boyreactd050708b_rgbb.jpg
-
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=stringtown+rd++clarksburg+nd&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl or look here no curves hence the judges conclusion
-
Since you're so well researched on the matter, why don't you give us an address of the accident site so we can look it up on Google earth?
Your pic only shows one approach. The other approach may have a curve.
Straight rural roads like that are typically 45-50mph speed limits unless there are curves or other reasons to go slower. This one is obviously 30mph for some reason.
-
Even assuming that there are no curves, it would be fairly easy for a pedestrian to misjudge the speed the car was traveling at...
-
Since you're so well researched on the matter, why don't you give us an address of the accident site so we can look it up on Google earth?
Your pic only shows one approach. The other approach may have a curve.
Straight rural roads like that are typically 45-50mph speed limits unless there are curves or other reasons to go slower. This one is obviously 30mph for some reason.
it drops to 30 at the road mentioned in the article and all are visible on the google link
-
pedestrian to misjudge the speed the car was traveling at...
HMmM, you would think a cop would know the traffic laws, since he has probably pulled people over and wrote tickets for the same thing he did. Yes, the Blue Line is alive and well on this one. Trying to defend the cops actions tells me what powers you think are alright for police to have.
If it were my kid, well......I will stop there
-
truly sorry the kids hurt but i'm guessing you didn't read the articles beyond the examiner
-
I have to agree with Brad and CaSD. The kid wasn't paralyzed or blind before the accident, was he? A 14-year-old who gets hit by a car outside of a crosswalk should be declared a sacrifice to Darwin and everyone should move on. I say this having run cross country/track in HS and thus having jaywalked in city traffic thousands of times.
Of course it's a tragedy, but not all tragedies are the fault of the survivor(s).
-
its unfortunate that some media chose to pander to their fanbois with sensational headlines that dance around the truth. more unfortunate that folks don't look closer and call em out for their "journalism"
-
you would think a cop would know the traffic laws, since he has probably pulled people over and wrote tickets for the same thing he did.
Cops don't know the law, they just enforce it.
-
i think he knows the speeding law just not the limit on that road its a big county i drove cab 5 years in it never was on that road.
so which examiner article did you read?
-
OK, what's the real point? Where are there secondary roads with 55 mph speed limits in the county? How many of them are there?
If the cop knows the laws regarding speeding he knows that they are broken down not only by x-number-of-mph-over-the-posted-limit but x-mph-based-on-type/location-of-road (secondary urban vs secondary rural -- usually defined by distance between houses alongside the road), etc.
And cops everywhere regularly exceeed the posted limit without using lights and/or siren just because they want to. I routinely stop by my local cop-shop to talk with the watch commander and submit a written complaint about the cop that passed me exceeding the limit without warning devices on. It's not just that it's breaking the lawe - which frosts me no end - but that it's costing tax dollars they don't have. So far, AFAIK, all it gets is the cop chewed out because the watch commander has to submit a written response back to me about whether or not cop rules/policy were violated. I really don't expect much more, and the cops know better than to harass me over it as that will get them hauled on the carpet for official action.
The point being, if he was exceeding the speed limit and doing so outside of established policy/procedure then he was not doing it in the line of duty and loses qualified immunity. That the agency is not dealing with him open them to vicarious liability. Even in the 4th Circuit which is notorious for "protecting" cops. but in state court the penalties are even more severe and the liability even steeper.
stay safe.
-
in that part of clarksburg on that road limit is 50 less than 3 miles from the accident
i'm not aware of any true secondary roads that are 55
-
- There were 124 feet of skid marks left on the road by the cruiser,-
the police report says,
- and investigators noted two scuff marks that matched the color of Jovel's sneakers after 40 feet of skid marks. The cruiser slid another 80 feet before coming to a stop.-
"The investigation and report speak for itself," Starks said.
40 feet of skid marks before with a slight delay before hitting the brakes. That is a very short distance at any speed (4 or 5 car lengths?) Did the kid run out into the road without looking? That is the only reason I can think of that it went the way it did.
I've seen plenty of roads that size down here with houses near the road and speed limits of 45 to 60.
-
statist! that not what that highly informative article in the examiner said
-
That article didn't say much of anything.
The only 30 MPH zones I see down here are residential streets and such. Outside of towns, it is normally 45 or faster. 60 or 65 is the normal on the farm roads.
Sometimes bad things happen with cars and no one is really at fault. I recall that a kid got hit right in front of our drive way while riding a bike. He and two other kids were riding bikes down the road. A lady was coming up behind them and slowed to 45 (55 limit) and was going to go around them on the left. Just as she was going by, one of the kids suddenly veered over to the left lane and got hit. He was okay except his head banged on the asphalt and he was bleeding. Ambulance hauled him off.
-
We had a county cop that was doing 100+ in a 50 and crashed into a car full of people, killing one IIRC, and putting another in a nursing home for life. He made various false statements about the incident immediately after the incident about why he was doing 100+ MPH without his lights or siren on. Not that it would have mattered much. Even doing the speed limit where he was you don't get a whole lot of time to stop when someone pulls out to make a LH turn onto the road. And the people making the LH turn can't see from there far enough to not pull out in front of someone going 100+ mph.
He was charged but like most of these cases, the system protects its own. The state's attorney claimed they could not prosecute him because they would be representing the county in the civil case (not an unreasonable thing IMO) so the state attorney general did the prosecution. I am guessing they did not send their best and brightest.
After the debacle in court, he got his job back, with back pay too. The county did the right thing by the people who were injured, probably because the negligence was so clear. The amount they settled for exceeded their insurance coverage for a single incident and I suspect it will have to be payed out of the tort fund tax.