Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's another appalling story of how the police get treated one way and civilians quite another. Dallas cop does 70 in a 40 mph zone without his lights or sirens on, hits a kid on a bike and kills him. His punishment: A day off from work. Without pay, I'm sure.
A Dallas police officer who fatally struck a child last October received a one-day suspension during a disciplinary hearing this afternoon.Senior Cpl. Michael Vaughn appeared before Assistant Chief Floyd Simpson, who oversees the city's seven patrol stations.
The punishment was for "for violating the emergency vehicle operations policy when he drove over the speed limit without activating the lights and sirens," police officials said.
If a civilian had done the same thing, it would almost certainly be vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter and would result in, at the very least, a serious fine and some time in jail. Here are the details:
On October 17, Vaughn was racing from one call to another when his squad car fatally struck 10-year-old Cole Berardi, who was riding his bicycle on a darkened portion of Belt Line Road in southeast Dallas...Cpl. Vaughn's lights and siren were not activated as required.
The police accident report released lists speed as a contributing factor in the accident. It states that the speed of Cpl. Vaughn's vehicle ranged from 69 mph to 72 mph at the time of impact. The speed limit on that stretch of road is 40 mph.
Vaughn was later cleared by a grand jury of any criminal culpability. But internal investigators have since concluded that he failed to the follow the department's established procedures.
It's amazing what having that badge can do for you.
Politics
Comments
The badge should not be a get-out-of-jail free card. It should be the complete opposite. Police need to be held to a higher standard than everyone else. This guy should be in jail. I wonder how the victim's family feels about this.
Posted by: catgirl | October 21, 2009 9:15 AM
I wonder how they feel about being required to pay for the damages to the patrol car.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 21, 2009 9:33 AM
No dash cam? I'd bet they'd be showing us some video if the little perp was wearing an iPod headset while he recklessly and with disregard rode down the street.
Seriously. If a longhaul truck driver is involved in an accident that results in a loss of life or even extensive property damage he will likely face loss of license and a silent, but effective "blackball" by other employers--whether the accident was his fault or not. We can't hold LOE to at least as high a standard. Something tells me that the City of Dallas will be writing a sizable check to the family of the child that was killed.
Posted by: democommie | October 21, 2009 9:35 AM
I completely agree! I've been saying just that for years. Another thing that really bothers me is that these same cops who don't think that they should be held to even the same standard--much less a higher one--believe that cops deserve better protection under the law. In other words, people who commit crimes against police officers should face stiffer penalties than those who commit the same crime against civilians. The thing is, in theory, I'm not opposed to that as long as the police are also held to a higher standard. Without that, cops are little more than armed thugs with badges.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 21, 2009 9:44 AM
Yes, I think police should have more protection, but they should also have more responsibility to go along with it. Those two ideas really don't contradict each other.
Posted by: catgirl | October 21, 2009 10:11 AM
I live in Dallas, and while driving I was once nearly rear-ended by a police car doing at least 30 mph over the speed limit where I was. The police car's headlights were on, but the warning lights and siren were not. I barely was able to swerve out of the way in time to avoid a collision.
Nice to know that if I had been seriously killed in such an accident, the cop probably would have lost a day's pay.
>:(
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | October 21, 2009 10:14 AM
David,
From the article, I'm not sure he even lost the day's pay. Just got time off duty to answer questions.
It would be interesting to note whether this asswipe cop has a history of 'above the limit' complaints or other 'I am better than you because I have a badge' issues. Swine. I hope he has to face the kid's parents.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 21, 2009 10:20 AM
Sorry, Ed; on this one, my reaction is that if you don't like it, you should be complaining more about the Grand Jury. If the civilian population won't hold their "protectors" accountable, it puts real limits on the social options.
Posted by: abb3w | October 21, 2009 10:45 AM
abb3w:
I think they share equal blame, of course. One of the big problems we have is that the average person, the ones that make up a jury, automatically give cops the benefit of the doubt (it's part of our authoritarian soul in this allegedly freedom-loving country) over everyone else. If it's a cop's word against an alleged criminal's word, the cop wins. That's one reason why I continue to publicize police behavior, to help counteract that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 21, 2009 11:00 AM
So many of your police misconduct stories come out of Texas that I'm starting to think the real underlying problem is the existence of Texas rather than corruption or double standards.
Posted by: Paul from NH | October 21, 2009 11:03 AM
The Grand Jury only gets to hear the evidence the DA puts before it. Most jurisdictions allow GJs subpoena powers, but these are rarely, if ever, used.
So the GJ was told it was dusk, the kid was in dark clothing with no light on the bike, maybe he was wearing headphones. They really don't have much of a choice there,
Posted by: kehrsam | October 21, 2009 11:10 AM
The officer was heading towards a call in the line of duty. If he had his lights and siren on at the time of the accident there would have been no question that the officer was in the right. His error was in failing to follow procedures. I usually agree with you Ed but you are wrong in this case. There is no comparison between this incident and the act of a civilian. A civilian would have had no justification in speeding on that stretch of road. This officer was justified but failed to follow procedures.
Just so you understand my POV, my best friend was killed in 1986 by an ambulance that ran a red light and hit his car. The ambulance was racing to a call but did not have his siren on. No criminal charges were filed against the driver but the county did pay a large settlement due to the negligence of the driver.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 21, 2009 11:43 AM
I should also add that in most cases unless the civilian flees the scene or was drinking, no criminal charges would be filed. Speeding alone, without another contributing factor (e.g., alcohol, racing with another driver), is not enough in NY to bring criminal charges.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 21, 2009 11:46 AM
Posted by Stinking Crock @ 11:38 PM Sat, Sep 05, 2009 @ http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/07/dallas-police-one-day-suspensi.html
I'm guessing the Shreveport, LA police department might hire him. Seems they've got a penchant for sorry sacks... like this guy.
What a stinking crock... just goes to prove, "If you're not Cop, you're little people"!
Just Say No To Thugs,
Stinking Crock
Posted by: Stinking Crock | October 21, 2009 11:59 AM
"You know the score, pal.
You're not cop, you're little people!"
Posted by: Fake Bryant Blade Runner | October 21, 2009 12:01 PM
Ed @ 9:
I've never sat on a jury for what I believe is one reason: Every defense attorney dismisses me without reason, I think because I look like a Republican golfer who will always defend the 'powers that be'. Their loss as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 21, 2009 12:10 PM
Yeah, I'm surprised the grand jury didn't at least find some kind of negligent homicide or similar crime. Even if it was in response to a call, speeding like that is criminal behavior, period.
Most ambulances and police cars stick to within a few mph of the speed limit (and in most states it's part of their operating regulations).
I hope the family can at least get a settlement from the dept.
Posted by: FastLane | October 21, 2009 12:54 PM
FastLane: Yeah, I'm surprised the grand jury didn't at least find some kind of negligent homicide or similar crime. Even if it was in response to a call, speeding like that is criminal behavior, period.
I'm not sure what the law is in Texas, but in NY speeding alone is not criminal behavior. There needs to be another contributing factor. Alcohol is an example. Racing with another driver has been used on a couple of occasions. But unless the driver is either drunk or flees the scene, there is little chance of getting a criminal conviction in NY. These things usually go to civil court for damages.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 21, 2009 1:00 PM
In Los Angeles, grand jury candidates are nominated by seated judges, and the nominees are selected from that list by a panel of seated judges. This guarantees a grand jury will side with the prosecution, the bench, and the police.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | October 21, 2009 1:02 PM
pig should be fried..
Posted by: james | October 21, 2009 1:09 PM
What I want to know is why the kids father has not dealt with this PUNK cop personally? If that were my kid he KILLED, there is nowhere on this planet he would be safe from me. I mean really, think about it. This PUNK does not deserve to breathe. Loser punk cop.
Jess
www.anonymous.ua.tc
Posted by: John Davis | October 21, 2009 1:20 PM
TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY DFW.
Have Floyd Simpson REMOVED.
Posted by: Mark Mattington | October 21, 2009 1:24 PM
First off, James, you're a douche. To counter the point of the original poster, where I live, officers are only allowed to run lights and siren for three scenarios. Officer in trouble, calls where loss of life is imminent, and traffic stops/pursuits. Therefore, if three guys are breaking into your house, the responding officer is not automatically authorized to use lights and siren. I don't know if Dallas works the same way, but it was stated that the officer was responding to a call. Wouldn't you want the police to arrive as quickly as possible if you felt you or your family was in danger? It's unfortunate that a child was killed, but an average citizen is never going to have an excuse for doing 30 over; first responders sometimes need to. And what if the officer had of been utilizing his lights and siren? The boy still would have been killed. Let's face it, you're just looking for a reason to blame the police for something.
Posted by: Alex | October 21, 2009 1:27 PM
Jess, you're an even bigger douche. And you've got a bad case of internet tough guy syndrome.
Posted by: Alex | October 21, 2009 1:29 PM
Alex, if his sirens had been on, perhaps the child would have been aware of the officer's approach and had a chance to get out of the way.
As a civilian, if I hit a child on a bicycle while at or under the speed limit, I'd be in deep trouble. This officer did the same, only while violating the speed limit. Just because he's a police officer, that doesn't give him the right to be speeding without his sirens.
Enforcing the law does not give an officer an excuse to break it.
What happened to the days when police officers served the people? Now they do nothing but make people scared and nervous. Police officers are losing popularity, and it's nobody's fault but their own.
Posted by: Vince | October 21, 2009 1:41 PM
Dallas is cited as the least bicycle friendly major city in the US. It's much the same where I live (Brownsville). People drive incredibly irresponsibly and I've stopped riding a bike on streets as a result.
As a nation we need to begin treating cyclists with respect. We're running out of cheap oil, and electric cars are not going to fill that gap anytime soon. Bicycles are cheap, non polluting, and the exercise is good for you, but not when you're surrounded by clueless drivers in vehicles that weigh several tons.
Posted by: guitarbuddy | October 21, 2009 1:52 PM
Can the family at least bring a civil suit against the cop and the police department? If you cant put the guy in jail for murdering that child, then put him in the poor house.
Posted by: Wayne | October 21, 2009 1:53 PM
Alex, I am not sure where you live, but in the united states (unless you live in another country) police sirens are suppose to serve as visual/audible notification.
Pursuits, emergencies, setting road blocks, detours, any number of things you could imagine that require the use of there lights or at times both the lights/siren.
Calling out people as deuches just makes you seem like a heated up neck beard.
Posted by: Manny | October 21, 2009 2:12 PM
Police SHOULD be held to a much higher standard of conduct.As should all politicians.But sadly, BOTH of these fields tend to attract bottomfeeders and maladjusted malcontents.And if they ARE held to a high standard, we would soon find our cities and govt posts bereft of officers and elected officials.A good percentage of the avg police force is filled with bullies,pedophiles,rapists and sociopaths who simply were lucky enough or smart enough to not get caught doing any of their crimes before getting hired as a cop or elected to public office.After they ARE hired or elected however, they many times find they now have a "get out of jail free card" as someone so eloquently put it.And this does nothing but ENCOURAGE them to commit more and more acts of criminal behavior since they feel they are better than everyone else and therefore untouchable.Kind of like the avg diplomat who parks wherever they feel like,hurt whomever they feel like and in general commit any crimes they feel like only to laugh at any attempt to rein them in with the dismissive "Diplomatic immunity" line.
Posted by: T.Rex | October 21, 2009 2:15 PM
Was he on duty? Was he responding to an off-duty call? Any reason he wouldn't want to be noticed? I understand he was cleared by a grand jury, but I'd like a little more info, otherwise it seems kind of suspicious.
Posted by: echosolace | October 21, 2009 2:18 PM
There needs to be a change in this country regarding "privilege" by job/appointment. While this is a police officer, not only should they be included, but elected and appointed government officials need to be held to a higher standard! The anecdotal stories we hear are just the tip of the iceberg. This homicide is just one example of the police being unable to police themselves, and covering their own.
Let's push for this Higher Standard!
Posted by: Ed J | October 21, 2009 2:23 PM
When my dad lived on the Texas border and worked over it in a Mexican plant, he was driving late in the evening through a patch of dark road with tall corn close to the road both sides. A Mexican child ran out from between the cornstalks and right in front of the car. He didn't even have time to register what it was he hit. The Mexican authorities made him sweat for that, but when they saw how devastated he was, they let him go. Dad said that for months afterward he would dream he had hit one of his own kids.
Posted by: speedwell | October 21, 2009 2:41 PM
Some wonder how the family feels, and I do too, but I wonder how the cop feels. Does he feel justified? Was it worth it to him? Does he feel guilty about his lethal mistake?
Posted by: russell | October 21, 2009 2:42 PM
This is absolutely inexcusable.
The cop should face manslaughter charges, a crime for which he is clearly guilty. Members of the Grand Jury should be publicly shamed.
Posted by: he_should_pay | October 21, 2009 2:42 PM
Studies in the 60's proved that in the majority of cases police exceeding the speed limit while responding to calls caused more harm than they prevented. Officers should be required to request permission to exceed posted limits.
Lights and sirens should be used except in cases where they would enable the perp to escape..i.e. burglary in progress, and no life in danger.
Traffic pursuits should be undertaken only when the actions of the driver may cause bodily harm.
Posted by: RetiredCaptain | October 21, 2009 2:50 PM
And without fail, people appear to defend the cops, not matter what they do. Always, every time.
Posted by: Theron | October 21, 2009 2:54 PM
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND PEOPLE!!! IF THE COP GOES TO JAIL THAT IS LIKE GIVING HIM A DEATH SENTENCE!! HE WOULD NOT LAST ONE DAY IN JAIL!!!
I mean come on!! IS NOT LIKE HE KILLED ANYONE!
oh wait. :(
Posted by: Some guy | October 21, 2009 3:23 PM
Yeah...Fuck that cop. Let him rot in a jail cell for a few years. He broke the rules and killed a child. If he would've had his lights and siren on, that kid most likely would've seen/heard him. Yeah, I bet he feels like shit afterward, but how do you think the average person would feel in the same position. And THEY would serve YEARS and get a FINE, NOT BE REWARDED WITH A DAY OFF.
Posted by: Sad. | October 21, 2009 3:32 PM
It never says in this article that the officer didn't feel horrible for what he did. If he doesn't then I agree he should be in jail. If he went against a grand jury and they decided he was not criminally culpable then the justice system took its course and no one is at fault for that other than the members of the grand jury. The department didn't try to cover it up. You people need to get off your high horses and realize this isn't a scandal. It is a terrible accident but no one tried to do it.
Posted by: ADeLaRosa | October 21, 2009 3:59 PM
I work with the police in Dallas (with them, not for them, aka I'm with another closeby dept) and they have only three reasons they are allowed to run with their lights and sirens on: 1. Officer Down/Needs Assistance, 2. Traffic Pursuits (and that is very restricted) and 3. Calls where there is iminent danger of loss of life. Do you know WHY there are only 3 reasons they can run hot with the lights/siren? Because people complained that there was too much noise from the sirens at night. That's right, look it up. The city was getting so many protests from people saying the sirens were so loud and obnoxious that they wanted to cut as many reasons as possible for the sirens to be sounding. So, if you hear a siren in Dallas after 7pm, it's most likely a fire truck or an ambulance, or it's a cop heading to a no-shit shots fired kind of call.
So, what you people who have not been in law enforcement need to understand is that you cannot vote in a law telling a department "don't use your sirens cause i don't want the noise disturbing Wheel of Fortune" and then get pissed off when accidents occur. It's sad, it's tragic, it's something that officer will have nightmares about for the rest of his life, but it's not something you lock him up for. It's a shame that an accident cost an innocent life, but he was likely heading to a call to try and SAVE a life. Accidents happen, as much as we'd like them not to.
Posted by: Officer | October 21, 2009 4:09 PM
"Vaughn was racing from one call to another"
The officer was at least in the line of duty. Other than that you don't know any other circumstances about this case in which to judge what happened.
You seem to imply he was just racing down the road for no particular reason.
Posted by: Walter McGrain | October 21, 2009 4:14 PM
If he had followed a very simple procedure, the boy on the bike probably would have heard the sirens or seen the lights, and would have had time to get away. Unless there's some good reason why to police officer didn't use his lights and siren, this is just plain homicide.
Posted by: catgirl | October 21, 2009 4:18 PM
'Officer', did you not read the article? The department explicitely stated that not running the lights/sirens was in violation of the dept protocal. So I think maybe you are the one who get their facts straight.
Yes, it's annoying having police or other emergency sirens running through one's neighborhood, especially later at night. (I live about 200 yards from a police and fire substation.) But it doesn't seem to be the case that it's quite as restrictive as you say, or it was one of the three situations you described.
Now, having clarified that, knowing he should have been running his lights/siren (according to the PD), do you still want to claim that it's all the public's fault for not wanting their 'Wheel of Fortune' to be disturbed?
Posted by: FastLane | October 21, 2009 4:30 PM
It amazes me that the dead kid wasn't charged with destroying police property........
Posted by: D.Brown | October 21, 2009 4:36 PM
Officer, #40:
So, you're saying that the rules prevent a police officer from using the siren and lights but do permit a police car to go 70 mph in a 40 mph zone without sirens or lights? I doubt that is right.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 21, 2009 4:42 PM
The police officer was going 70 miles down a 40 mile rd. If his reason for speeding was NONE of what you mentioned then he was not compliant. If it was for ONE of what you mentioned, then he was not compliant. Regardless, AS a protector of the law, I would assume that he clearly understands the risk involved in a speeding vehicle, especially on a road that is of lower speed. Scratch that, I hope rather than assume he understands it. Instead of being a protector, he became a threat and should be punished for it.
I agree that policemen should be held to a higher standards-in protection and responsibility as Catgirl so sensibly stated. Anyway-I’m a civilian and I know better (hence no speeding ticket, no death rate and no car accidents in my 12 years of driving)-if we can not hold our policemen to a higher standard, I say at least hold them to our own.
Posted by: Nameless | October 21, 2009 5:11 PM
Don't worry. The guilt on his conscious is probably the worst. Especially since he got away scott-free
Posted by: Jeffreysoto@mac.com | October 21, 2009 5:28 PM
A very simple solution to the problem in Dallas. If it is true you can only run with sirens and lights for three reasons, then it should be true you can only speed for these same reasons. Making all other speed unauthorized. I am sure this is reasonable, and that even police can understand this. If the child killed would have been the policemen's own I am sure changes would be made.
Posted by: Branson | October 21, 2009 5:46 PM
Again, check the laws. In most states, if you or I were speeding and hit the kid the only thing that would have happened to us (assuming we stopped and weren't drunk) is maybe a speeding ticket. Speeding alone is not grounds for vehicular homicide.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 21, 2009 5:49 PM
Ed: Here's another appalling story of how the police get treated one way and civilians quite another.
Ed, do you have any evidence that shows that a person driving 30mph over the speed limit in Texas who was not drunk and hit someone was charged with a crime? Anyone?
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 21, 2009 5:52 PM
WOW.....The rampant idiocy that has infected this comment section is amazing. I hereby banish all of you forthwith from a society with the protection of the police. Unfortunately I live in the Bay Area where cop hating douche-baggery is rampant. Usually, perusing the Sci-Blogs serves to continually refresh my disdain for the right. Occasionally it also reminds that I feel the same way about the left. Every time I read a post like about 50% of the ones above, I use the voice of a South Park character and that always puts it in the proper perspective.
Posted by: Fletcher | October 21, 2009 5:55 PM
And Fletcher proves my point, again. For some people, the cops absolutely can do no wrong, ever. The authoritarian mind at its finest.
Posted by: Theron | October 21, 2009 6:09 PM
Of course this kind of thing happens in Texas.
Posted by: Ralf | October 21, 2009 6:15 PM
Cops generally have the freedom to exceed speed limit laws for various reasons - catching up to a suspected drunk driver to name but just one.
Another example is if they observed a possible wanted person drive by, whether they saw the car or the driver himself, and they don't want to stop the person right away without backup first. They are allowed to catch up to that driver, which means exceeding the speed limit for a short period of time, and then follow that person until backup arrives before they make the stop.
Just two examples, but the pint remains that for cops to properly do police work, they have to be given some leeway in the area of speed limit laws. Granted this incident is a different issue since the cop was given an emergency call, but the argument still stands.
Posted by: Big Fscott | October 21, 2009 6:40 PM
And I can think of another time cops are allowed to exceed speed limits. If they get a call of a domestic incident where responding to the call with sirens on would alert the suspect and put a victim in more danger, or alert the suspect to flee. Other cases such as a bank robbery call. Again sirens would simply alert the robbers and allow them time to take hostages and possibly flee.
Posted by: Big Fscott | October 21, 2009 6:44 PM
Lets think about this......
The father is looking into the grave...
It is his only child.....
He cannot have any others......(I don't know if this applies to this father but just go with it.)
Who wants to bet on the cop living too long?????
And the father? Well if I'm on the jury the cops will get a strong message...
I'd pull an OJ...screw the evidence -Not guilty!!!!
I know I'm a little extreme-I've learned to live with it.
Posted by: CybrgnX | October 21, 2009 8:37 PM
I think where you go wrong in reporting this as egregious is the sureness with which you think an average citizen would be criminally charged under that exact same circumstances.
It's also seems likely that the poor kid would have died if he'd been hit at 40 mph. I've had the wits scared out of me on dark roads where I've suddenly become aware of someone walking or riding a bicycle just as I approached them and could have not stopped had they actually been in my path of travel.
I've had my share of dealings with bullies with a badge. I'd much rather get pulled over by a state patrolman than a local yokel who didn't have the brains to get into the state academy and may have very little training.
Big city police departments like Dallas are somewhere in between in brains and training. Someone upthread mentioned Shreveport LA police... and yep, we've got some doozies in the department.
I grew up in the 60s and automatically trusting cops is not something that was ingrained in me at all. My dad grew up in the 30s and oddly enough he has the same attitude, so it would be wildly hilarious to call me a "cop supporter" or even a "law and order" type.
However, even I don't think that "A good percentage of the avg police force is filled with bullies,pedophiles,rapists and sociopaths..." is even close to the truth. (Note, that's a commenter's take, not the blogger's.)
Posted by: Donna B. | October 21, 2009 8:48 PM
I think the people who think the cop's guilty conscience is punishment enough are really cute. I remember when cops shot my next door neighbour's dog to death for no reason. They had a good laugh and gave each other high-fives afterwards.
Getting away with killing someone or something is like winning the lottery for them.
Posted by: Dazed | October 21, 2009 8:54 PM
And Fletcher proves my point, again. For some people, the cops absolutely can do no wrong, ever. The authoritarian mind at its finest.
I wonder if he would feel differently if it were his kid. Probably not.
Posted by: Fred Mim | October 21, 2009 9:01 PM
Sooo after having some time to chew on this story, I can't help but wonder about what Officer said. I can't help but wonder IF Senior Cpl. Michael Vaughn had turned on his sirens-would it have given warning that a speeding police car was coming and in turn would the boy have waited to see if it would pass before attempting to cross the road...I get what Officer was saying. It's a weird rule, that 7pm cut off. Maybe it's time for a repeal...unless crime truly stops at 7...
On my planet, not only do we not have that strange law-we have flashing lights to let civilians know there is an emergency vehicle within the area. As someone who is constantly on the road, I've found it to be useful.
Still, it doesn't detract from the fact that Senior Cpl. Michael Vaughn was also not following orders. If he was already going to break that rule-why not sound off a siren to warn folks about a speeding car?
Anyway-I feel this blog lacking in information...
Posted by: confused | October 21, 2009 11:19 PM
His squad car??
Aren't we always told, that guns don't kill people - people kill people? Well, cars don't either.
HIS SQUAD CAR didn't hit and kill that kid. HE hit and killed that kid.
He should - at least - be charged with negligence.
Cops are people, too. They have all the same virtues and faults as everyone else. They should be held to at least the same standard - more, if you consider the enormous power they have over others.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2009 12:30 AM
tldr after Alex started calling people douches.
i know if some guy was breaking into a house he is gonna leave faster if the sirens are on. I want the burgalar to leave asap. The officer was speeding that must mean he had to cover a long distance fast. He can shut them off when he is closer. I agree with everyone who says people should be treated like other people. Badge or not
Posted by: Me | October 22, 2009 3:26 AM
I would ask why his lights and siren weren't on. Why do newspaper reports never tell you this kind of thing. I mean it's the main part of the story. No wonder print media style is dying.
I think this is a case of unfortunate circumstances. Punishing someone for an accident is kinda pointless. Better training is more productive. Oh and bike lights and helmets. The number of kids I see without helmets is ridiculous.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 22, 2009 5:18 AM
Fletcher, #51: I hereby banish all of you forthwith from a society with the protection of the police.
Except for the dead kid, of course. The kid doesn't get to live in any kind of society any more, with or without police protection.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 22, 2009 7:38 AM
The Largest Street Gang in the Country
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=7086
Posted by: LoneStranger | October 22, 2009 8:33 AM
He was treated like any other; actually held to a higher level. The child (and parents)was at fault in this accident. The child was trying to cross a busy road, not at a crosswalk, at night in an unlit area without any lights on his bike. Why did his parents let him wander the streets after dark anyway in this crime infested area of Dallas. Even with lights and siren, no one can say that he would have been able to get out of the way in time. It could have happened at the speed limit also. The child was charged with fault of the accident and a contributing factor was charged to the driver for speeding; just as it would have been to anyone else. Get the facts (not from a news report) before you place judgement. This was a tragedy for the child, the child's family, the officer and his family. God be with them all!
Posted by: Trooper | October 22, 2009 9:06 AM
Same as in the UK (80 in a 40) - except the cop killed a 17year old girl and dashcam was on. He got 5 years in jail when the press wondered if he would get away with it because he was a cop.
Posted by: mark smith | October 22, 2009 9:32 AM
Trooper:
Two parties were at fault, one is dead. Apparently the LOE was not following department regs. The child was GUILTY of crossing a street in the dark, the LOE was GUILTY of violating department regs, no equivalency as the cop is supposed to be an adult and a public servant.
There was no dash cam in the cruiser?
Posted by: democommie | October 22, 2009 11:12 AM
@Tilting At Windows -
ORLY?
That's from Orange County attorney Michael L. Guisti. Since he's a lawyer, and you're just some random dip who posts unsubstantiated opinions with nothing to back it up, I think I'll take his experience over yours.
Here's an incident from NJ:
I mean seriously, you should look up the facts before posting shit you really have no idea about.
Posted by: Michael VanDeMar | October 22, 2009 11:50 AM
Brilliant Michael. If the officer gets charged under either California or New Jersey laws I'll be sure to pay attention to the crap that you say.
Meanwhile, the part of the story that you edited out about Trooper Higbee also showed that he had a record of careless driving and he ran through a stop sign in addition to speeding. And by the way, Higbee was found not guilty.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 22, 2009 1:22 PM
This is just ridiculous. This cop should be charged with man-slaughter. How is it that cops continuously get away with things like this?
Posted by: e cigarette | October 22, 2009 3:54 PM
If the kid had been obeying the law, he'd still be alive. You shouldn't be on a bike in low light conditions. The cops do a job nobody else wants to do and all of you criminals and welfare hoods come in here and complain about it. The kid was probably some illegal immigrant anyway, good riddance. For every 1 good cops, there are 100 illegals just waiting to join a gang and get a gun.
Posted by: Bigdog | October 22, 2009 3:59 PM
@Bigdog, no. 72.
Wow, your comment makes me feel dead inside, knowing there are people walking our streets who think like you.
Posted by: Rob W. | October 22, 2009 4:11 PM
@Bigdog, no. 72.
Wow, your comment makes me feel dead inside, knowing there are people walking our streets who think like you.
Posted by: Rob W. | October 22, 2009 4:11 PM
Police today are no longer protectors they have become bullies who get away with anything. Unfortunately, there are some genuinely good cops out there but they are outnumbered by the crappy ones. Most police are the people who were the bullies in high school who couldn't cut it in college so saw an easy way to make money and have power. Now there are cops who became cops solely because they couldn't find any other form of employment. I hope for the day when the police on the streets are the ones who became police because they wanted to protect and serve not bully and be above the law. I know it sounds harsh but I've been in the situation too many times where a cop is trying to use intimidation although I never committed any violation or crime but luckily I know my rights and the law but sadly most people do not and get royally screwed by some jerk with a badge. The sad part is I wanted to be a police officer but those situations made me change my mind, I could never as a good police officer stand by and watch cops get away with things they shouldn't without saying something and if i did then of course I would magically get fired for something ridiculous which I have also seen happen to good cops. I hope the police officer in the article really did make a mistake and forgot to put on his lights and wasn't just speeding for the sake of speeding and shows remorse for killing a child.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2009 4:15 PM
This EXACT same thing happened in my home town of Cortland, OH about 3 years ago. A cop, Jason Smith, was speeding down the main stretch of road, High St, and killed a teenage girl who was crossing the street to pick up a drink from Circle-K (Convenience Store). What did he get? Nothing. Even worse is that 6 months prior to the girls death her mother had passed away. Imagine how her father feels. I am sure the cop was suspended for a day or something equally unjust, but I drive past his house on the way to my parents and see him and his police car all the time, so I know he is still not in jail. So sad.. So sad.
Posted by: misternutt | October 22, 2009 4:33 PM
80% of bicycle fatalities (in australia) are due to no bike lights at night. Get bike lights before you get a helmet, they're more useful.
In most cases of bike vs car with cyclist death the driver gets off without punishment because it was a simple accident.
Some drivers don't seem to be aware of the fact that they've got a ton of battering ram capabable of doing 100kph (60mph).
Other drivers seem to be aware of this and feel it gives them the right to be bully's on the road, suddne;y they have power and 'the right' to dangerously overtake slow cyclists. Exercising that 'right' puts someones life at risk. In the sea the rule is yeild to lesser vechiles (big ships crush small boats). I use the same principle as a pedestrian - I'm 6'2" and load 25,000 - 30,000kg of soap into shipping containers three days a week for a job so i'm a big dude - what would the reaction be if i went round pushing people outta my way because i had somewhere to be...?
I don't see the problem as the cop. Sure the system's shitty and my heart goes out to the kids parents, if you read this i'm so sorry for your loss. Society seems to hate cyclists, ped's hate us because we're quiet, cars hate us because of the danger of driving near us, cyclists even hate eachother - hipsters vs lycra-lad(y)'s vs commuters vs enviro-dicks.
Cycling is just another part of modern society that needs to change, if anything can come from this tragic loss of life is that more people are aware of how dangerous their cars are.
Posted by: another tool | October 22, 2009 4:36 PM
another tool, #77: In most cases of bike vs car with cyclist death the driver gets off without punishment because it was a simple accident.
Wow. Even when the driver is going 70 mph in a 40 mph zone? Or are you talking about something completely different?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 22, 2009 4:48 PM
Bigdog, #72: The cops do a job nobody else wants to do and all of you criminals and welfare hoods come in here and complain about it.
Yeah. The least we can do for the poor cops is let them race 30 mph over the limit without impunity!
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 22, 2009 4:53 PM
To Tilting at Windows - Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say but I can assure you from my investigation of NY state traffic laws (as a Canadian I was issued a speeding ticket and had to figure out my options) that one can do up to 15 days jail time for speeding alone.
Posted by: Alogon | October 22, 2009 4:54 PM
Oops. That should be "with impunity."
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 22, 2009 4:55 PM
Well if I am not mistaken, regardless of lights or sirens, if he is called to a scene/emergency a police officer is exempt from traffic laws.
How quickly do you want an officer at your door step when your wife is getting raped?
Things like this happen, to cops, to civilians. It was an accident, not some cop above the law, but a cop doing everything necessary to preserve peace and justice. Could this have been avoided? Yes. Bad timing, bad happening.
Think about how many times you hear a siren a day, well multiply that times say 5, and that is the amount of calls officers go to, without lights and sirens. Does this happen every day, no. So instead of looking upon this as some righteous way to criticize ethics, look upon this as just an accident. Do some research on how many fatal accidents happen a day, and see the ratio of how many are police officer related.
Don't poke on the police, poke on civilian drivers, they are the ones that are "wreckless".
Posted by: Ponch | October 22, 2009 5:03 PM
I am absolutely amazed by the amount of ignorance being displayed. Amazed, but not surprised. We in this country have for some reason reached a point where it seems the majority of you would rather listen to half reported stories, that are hardly objective in their portrayal of events, and band together to point fingers at an easy target. I get so tired of all this anti-establishment B.S. PLACE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE IT BELONGS. As unfortunate as it is, the fact is that the child was riding his bicycle at night, without any sort of safety gear. This isn't a case of cops are evil! It was an accident. Preventable? Sure, but thats the nature of an accident. Cop or not, the child was at fault, and to an extent, his parents. You want to rail agianst police, great, just find a real reason to do it.
Oh, and funny enough, in my experience, the people who defend the police are usually the ones who have been defended by them against those of you who can't seem to follow the law.
Posted by: WhatTheEff | October 22, 2009 5:14 PM
Did they do a blood screen or swab for his dna? (The usual things that they make us citizens do if we had done what he did.)
Police are so far above the law, maybe its because they swear to an oath on a book full of lies.
Posted by: Anon | October 22, 2009 5:19 PM
Ponch,">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/kill_a_kid_take_the_day_off.php#comment-2015995">Ponch, #82: How quickly do you want an officer at your door step when your wife is getting raped?
Ponch, the issue isn't people dispute the necessity of police officers needing to drive their cars fast. The issue is that there is a simple method for making the high speed drive less dangerous, and the officer in question neglected to do that, and that may have contributed to a fatal accident. Mistakes happen, I guess, but most people here seem to think that this mistake should have resulted in something more than just a day's suspension.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 22, 2009 5:22 PM
"This isn't a case of cops are evil! It was an accident. Preventable? Sure, but thats the nature of an accident. Cop or not, the child was at fault, and to an extent, his parents. You want to rail agianst police, great, just find a real reason to do it."
No. You're out of your mind. Is it legal to ride your bicycle on a public road? Yes. Is safety equipment required to ride a bicycle on a public road? Not in any place that I'm aware. Is it illegal to drive 30mph over the speed limit? YES.
The cop's obviously liable here.
Posted by: shredswithpiks | October 22, 2009 5:24 PM
If this was a fire vehicle responding lights and sirens to a call and hit a kid the driver would get jail time guaranteed.
Posted by: roland | October 22, 2009 5:25 PM
Deoxyribonucleic acid has nothing to do with why they draw your blood. Do research before you post.
Cops get a bad wrap for what very few do. They are held at a higher standard yes, but...they are human.
Quit expecting cops to be perfect or robots. Look at yourself and criticize yourself and see how far that gets you.
Posted by: Ponch | October 22, 2009 5:25 PM
WhatTheEff, #83: You want to rail agianst police, great, just find a real reason to do it.
And a death partly caused by a cop's negligence in following departmental procedure isn't a "real" reason? Gotcha.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 22, 2009 5:28 PM
Chiroptera,
I see what you mean and the thing of it is, police officers are constantly having to do everything perfect and under more pressure than any other job.
I don't really agree with the cop being penalized at all, and apparently the Grand Jury agrees. Which if I am not mistaken, a Grand Jury is comprised of all civilans.
I guess knowing what officers do daily, I cannot agree with the article. They are not civilians and have the right to speed when necessary. If he was not responding to a call, then no he should not be speeding. Should he of used sirens and lights, should the kid be off the street, yes. So many factors to look at other than a cop making a mistake.
Posted by: Ponch | October 22, 2009 5:34 PM
Mr Brayton,
Please take a look at this similar story that happened in Los Angeles.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/10/19/neighbors-question-fatal-police-crash/
As of right now - the media is almost turning a blind eye to this tragedy and my fear is that these officers will also get off with a slap on the wrist.
This is a tragic situation that needs more attention.
Please Help bring this an other injustices to light.
Thank you
Posted by: Miles Tanter | October 22, 2009 5:37 PM
shredswithpiks, no. 86
This is what I'm talking about. So what if it is legal to do it. It is the responsibility of the person performing the action to make sure it is safe. The officer didn't drive off the road and hit the child. His vehicle was on the road, where it belonged. Either the kid was old enough to know better, or he needed more supervision from his parents. Either it was an accident caused by the bicyclist's negligence.
Chiroptera, no.89
No, it is not the officer's negligence, see above.
Posted by: WhatTheEff | October 22, 2009 5:42 PM
>>Deoxyribonucleic acid has nothing to do with why they draw your blood. Do research before you post.
If a citizen is charged with a felony, that citizen must provide DNA for the criminal database.
The blood test would be to check for narcotics or alcohol due to the excess speed and recklessness said citizen was performing. Ie. Vehicular Manslaughter.
Do research before you post.
Posted by: anon | October 22, 2009 5:43 PM
Anon,
Negative, only when convicted. Not charged.
So DNA is irrelevant. If he was convicted, it would be relevant.
Posted by: Ponch | October 22, 2009 5:46 PM
I think the idea why some citizens are appalled (sorry not trying to speak for all of you) is because the punishment to crime ratio is so high for a citizen in comparison to a police officer.
Ie. Protest against the war... get bapped in the head with a stick, thrown in jail, ridiculed by police officers, stripped, fined, sexually molested... all while days (PLURAL) days get taken away from your life.
Kill a kid with a car as a police officer (you see where were going with this?)
Posted by: anon | October 22, 2009 5:52 PM
@ Bigdog and @ Tilting windows.
You are both unbearably retarded. The standard for Vehicular Manslaughter is "NEGLIGENCE THAT CAUSES DEATH (In a vehicle of course)"... I figured id add the vehicle part because you seem to be quite stupid.
Unless your fucking braindead, you would know that the cop not putting on his sirens constitutes "NEGLIGENCE" and the fact that the kids heart is no longer beating, means that he "CAUSED DEATH"...
Now Tilting windows... you are so dumb it hurts my head to think about it. If you hit a kid and you are not speeding and you kill him, you are still guilty of "Vehicular Manslaughter" ... Ever heard of "The pedestrian always has the right of way"? Unless you can prove the kid jumped infront of your car, your fucking going to jail.
Posted by: Someone with Reason | October 22, 2009 5:54 PM
Someone with Reason
Look at Texas law and Dallas Police's "General Orders." Let me know if they have to use their light or sirens, that will answer the question of negligence.
Posted by: Ponch | October 22, 2009 5:58 PM
Hey Someone with Reason (Misnomer)
Nice, "I was just following orders not having my signal lights on at night while going too fast for anyone in the neighborhood to judge my speed, at night, because its sooo easy to see my car, at night" defense.
Posted by: anon | October 22, 2009 6:08 PM
Alex, for someone throwing around names, you sure are...never mind.
Super, double fail. First, he was punished for failure to follow procedures. The article clearly states that according to 'the rules' he should have had both siren and lights on.
Someone who argues without even comprehending the situation is a...never mind.
Second, the "point" and I use that term very lightly, that it was "just a technicality" at the core, and the fact that a kid got speed bumped was somehow an unforeseen, tangential, mitigated side effect. Wow...so, if I fail to signal and turn and run someone over. According to your "argument" the only thing differentiating me and the cop is that I "have an excuse" to make a right hand turn. Ok, I think going right is a reasonable excuse. So, therefore, according to your air tight logic, I should only be charged with failure to signal and that whole "ran someone over" thing should be discarded as an "Eh...it happens."
Throw in the fact that we are talking about a human life here and I think that fully qualifies you, sir, as a complete and unconditional...never mind.
Posted by: J. | October 22, 2009 6:25 PM
This "blog" gives science a bad name. (well, any blog would do the same."
Are you idiots under hte impression that any fatal acident involves someone goign to jail? HE was not speeding. He was legally allowed to drive over hte limit. ll he did wrong was not activate the siren.
Of course...it is REAL scientific to jump to conclusion based on a 3 paragraph description of hte case, rather than all the evidence that the grand jury (composed of regular civilians...NOT cops by the way) heard when they conlcuded that the accidnt was NOT the fault of the sirens being off.
Posted by: Lakawak | October 22, 2009 6:29 PM
Sure... then in using science and logic if it was not the fault of the cops then it must be the fault of the kid hitting the cop car with his brain matter.
Sometimes all you need is 3 paragraphs to gage a serious lack of justice, judgement, and above all fairness in policy.
Posted by: anon | October 22, 2009 7:12 PM
Alex ur such a fool u probably think u sound cool talking about this when u have no facts and no way of understanding the situation
Wat if it were ur kid huh??
defend the cop then u imbecile
so the douche is u dont respond to this im not logging back in for a war and i know this isnt gunna phase u because ur a young bleeding hearted fool
yull grow up one day and realize yur wrong and a situacioun like this will ahppen to u and u will not lean towards logic
-dante downey, ca 19yrs of age
Posted by: dante | October 22, 2009 7:26 PM
Why was the kid riding a bike that late? That's my question. Bad parenting.
Posted by: hater | October 22, 2009 7:35 PM
They are held to the same standard. It is called a Grand Jury. Did you read the line in the article:
"Vaughn was later cleared by a grand jury of any criminal culpability. "
The GJ is independent and does not look at just some of the facts, it looks at all the information.
Unlike people who write blogs.
Posted by: John Doe | October 22, 2009 7:36 PM
The thread is TLDR, but I agree with Ed @ 9.
The grand jury is culpabale for not finding obvious charges of vehicular homicide/manslaughter.
The police department should have either demoted him to office work/walking beat/non-driving partner or fired him, depending on union contracts. The department can issue better punishments then a day off without pay.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | October 22, 2009 8:00 PM
Sec. 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001 shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with policies of the department or the local government that employs the operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 546.004. EXCEPTIONS TO SIGNAL REQUIREMENT. (a) A volunteer fire fighter who operates a private vehicle as an authorized emergency vehicle may engage in conduct permitted by Section 546.001 only when the fire fighter is using visual signals meeting the pertinent requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.
(b) An authorized emergency vehicle that is operated as a police vehicle is not required to be equipped with or display a red light visible from the front of the vehicle.
(c) A police officer may operate an authorized emergency vehicle for a law enforcement purpose without using the audible or visual signals required by Section 546.003 if the officer is:
(1) responding to an emergency call or pursuing a suspected violator of the law with probable cause to believe that:
(A) knowledge of the presence of the officer will cause the suspect to:
(i) destroy or lose evidence of a suspected felony;
(ii) end a suspected continuing felony before the officer has obtained sufficient evidence to establish grounds for arrest; or
(iii) evade apprehension or identification of the suspect or the suspect's vehicle; or
(B) because of traffic conditions on a multilaned roadway, vehicles moving in response to the audible or visual signals may:
(i) increase the potential for a collision; or
(ii) unreasonably extend the duration of the pursuit; or
(2) complying with a written regulation relating to the use of audible or visible signals adopted by the local government that employs the officer or by the department.
Posted by: ponch | October 22, 2009 8:38 PM
Sec. 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:
(1) park or stand, irrespective of another provision of this subtitle;
(2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe operation;
(3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365,
(4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
Posted by: ponch | October 22, 2009 8:40 PM
Yes... Shawn... yes. Something so that the Cop knows that he did something wrong. Even though it wasn't vehicular homicide/manslaughter it was still negligent/unsafe, people in the military get worse punishments for foreign civilian casualties... I mean what if we assume that this guy didn't feel anything about this? (You know, comes with the job.) Then the power gets to his head... and maybe he feels as though he can get away with anything, which is something that seems quite common recently (maybe thats only because of the massive amounts of information out there, but really there are not that many good stories about cops out there.)
Maybe Law Enforcement needs good PR on the internet?
I don't have TV, I have probably only talked to 1 officer in the last 5 years and all of the people that say they are police that chat through the forums are usually rude and completely disconnected or too connected to parts of reality.
Posted by: anon | October 22, 2009 8:51 PM
So apparantly it's all fine and dandy for police officers to kill anyone who enters their path while on their way to a call? How can two groups of people (the police department and the grand jury) let this guy go with NO PENALTY??. He took the life of an innocent boy. He failed to follow protocol by not turning on his lights and siren therefore he should be held 150% responsible for the death of this child. This guy is breathing a sigh of relief as he's found not guilty while the family of this child has to bear the pain of having their son taken from them.
And for those of you who are calling "bad parenting" because the kid was out riding his bike late... can you HONESTLY tell me that you were never, never, NEVER out late with friends or riding your bike home from somewhere at night? I guarantee that you can't say you weren't.
You can twist this any way you want, the cop hit a kid and killed him. He wasn't following protocol, so there's no one to blame here but him.
Posted by: Tim T. | October 22, 2009 8:53 PM
Wow. This is like a 2nd Amendment free for all.
If the driver of the police cruiser was operating his vehicle in violation of established departmental procedures then he's guilty of that action. If, during the ocurrence of the violation there is an injury or death to a party then I'm guessing the department is on the hook for damages and the officer would, or should, be on the hook for dereliction of duty.
Posted by: democommie | October 22, 2009 8:54 PM
democomme, you are correct,
The way the Texas law reads is, he is not at fault (Grand Jury was correct in their decision). His department can punish him if he violates department policy (suspension for one day). Liability in a civil suit is on the department. They will be sued and the family will win.
Posted by: ponch | October 22, 2009 9:01 PM
Tim T.,
You are right he did violate his General Orders, therefore making the department liable. His actions are in direct representation of the Dallas Police Department. You can go on and on about procedure, protocol, negligent training, so many things, and that is why the department will be responsible for his actions. Since he didn't violate any laws, he is not criminally responsible.
Posted by: ponch | October 22, 2009 9:05 PM
I have the same problem, 4 doors down is an EMT that never hits his lights or sirens until he reaches my corner and blows the stop sign. I have a son that age and I make sure his bike has lights and reflectors. When it's dark he knows enough not to ride on the street b/c there are no street lights. Perhaps all Emergency personnel, Police, fire, Ambulance, should take their time and obey all traffic laws. If you die who cares.. right? Just ask any victim, survivor, patient that say "no one got here quick enough!"
Posted by: Greg G | October 22, 2009 10:54 PM
What did Billy Jack say in 1974:...."When the law breaks the law, then there is no law, just a struggle for survival!"
Posted by: Leon Flamick | October 23, 2009 12:36 AM
It's criminal but what do you expect? Cops are NOT smart people, they are relatively unintelligent. Stupid people are incapable so continue to expect more corruption, more murders, and more accidents, all the while walking away scott free. How many news reports of cops busting into a home, killing the homeowner who comes out of his bedroom half asleep, only to find out they had the wrong house. Cops are stupid, and yes you can be too smart to be a cop. The idea is that if you're too smart you'll get bored to quick. Enjoy your retard enforcers America.
Posted by: steve Tells | October 23, 2009 1:21 AM
When will people realize, the police are there to clean up messes, not protect anyone. He's a killer, and two years from now he "Won't want to hear it anymore." But hey, cops have been murdering and raping the people they're supposed to protect for years. They're incapable, self serving, and rarely helpful. I await the next story of Florida tazing a 2 year old because he/she slaps their leg while they stand over the body of the child's father...whom they killed by mistake...meanwhile the house they were actually looking for is across town. Fools.
Posted by: Eric Goode | October 23, 2009 1:28 AM
Cops have never been smart people. especially by those that have been arrested. I applied for the cops and was told I had to have 60 college credits or a associates degree in a related field. Screw my 9 year military background.
Oh yeah, don't worry about a background check, not to mention the first interview or criminal history check. How bout the second interview before the city commission and finally the polygraph test. Yeah, they should hire directly off the short bus for your sake.
I could get hired at a shopping mall, Best buy, Wal mart or Chilis that day.
Posted by: Greg G | October 23, 2009 1:52 AM
How about someone takes a day off, and kills the cop. That seems like proper symmetry.
Posted by: beautiful revenge | October 23, 2009 6:25 AM
a 40 mph road is pretty fast lane and probably a big road. Y was a kid on a bike in the middle of the road. It doesn't say how he was hit... maybe the biker was just a dumbass idk. There is too little information to judge the police, but still the penalty was still too low for homicide.
Posted by: anon | October 23, 2009 7:56 AM
I'm only commenting in this thread to tell the eejit who misspelled most of his post to either use proper English or fuck off.
It hurts people's eyes to read that miasma of crap.
Posted by: Katharine | October 23, 2009 8:08 AM
He didn't break any laws.
Posted by: ponch | October 23, 2009 10:01 AM
He was found guilty of failing to follow procedure. Guilty. Those of you who have been wasting your and our time arguing that the cop was not guilty or the child was at fault or the parents were at fault or that it is allowed to drive over the speed limit without sirens need to take a refresher course in both reading comprehension and the fundamentals of argument and stop hashing over an irrelevant red herring.
Whatever the rules regarding sirens specifically, he was supposed to have them on in that situation, and he didn't. We'll never know if having the sirens on would have prevented the accident, but since the whole point of the sirens and lights is to alert other people on the road of the approaching emergency vehicle from a long distance away, chances are if the sirens had been used, the child would have known not to cross the street at that time.
This cop also did not "get away" with anything. He was investigated according to the proper procedures, and found guilty. Guilty.
The question up for debate is whether or not the punishment was fair/sufficient/appropriate. A one-day suspension for negligence resulting in death?
Posted by: amphiox | October 23, 2009 10:14 AM
amphiox,
He was not guilty, Grand Jury did not take it to court. He broke Dallas Police policy, which means he was not guilty of breaking any laws, just local policy.
Read post 106-107.
Posted by: ponch | October 23, 2009 10:20 AM
amphiox,
Apparently I need more coffee, you are exactly right. I thought you were saying he was guilty of breaking a law.
My apologies.
Posted by: ponch | October 23, 2009 10:26 AM
WTF? Why would a parent allow a 10 year-old kid to ride his bike on a 40 MPH street in the dark? The parents are just as guilty as the officer
Posted by: Tim | October 23, 2009 10:57 AM
There is dashcam video and it was shown on tv where his parents saw it. They got a really lame settlement for the death. I believe he should have followed the law. Badge or not you still have to follow the rules and that is stay in speed limit unless you are emergency personnel and if speeding over limit is necessary you must use precautions. That road is dark and curvy and this cop should know it if that is his beat. He should have turned on his lights and sirens to warn ahead of the curve to not just pedestrians but other autos.
Posted by: sickened | October 23, 2009 12:12 PM
A check does shit for a dead child.
Posted by: Unacceptable | October 23, 2009 1:41 PM
A bullet behind the ear would suffice...
Posted by: Steve | October 23, 2009 7:07 PM
You guys just dont understand how Dallas works. This is simply and sadly an accident. The grand jury said he was not at fault. Why fire him? THe badge has nothing to do with it. Dallas would fire and trust me, they dont care about their police officers. Why would you write such means words on an officer that i am sure is depressed about this situation.
Posted by: V | October 26, 2009 2:26 PM
@V it's called equality. A citizen would have been charged with manslaughter, the officer was not. This officer deserves to be in jail.
Posted by: Gatz | October 26, 2009 4:26 PM
Sad story. My sympathies go out to the family. Being a cop is a hard job and they are held to a higher standard. If you hate cops that much, the next time you need them, don't call 911.
Posted by: static | October 28, 2009 10:56 AM
You also have to take into account whether the child was obeying the rules of bicycling, let alone the rules of bicycling at night. Some cities have specific laws regarding reflectors and/or lights at night, and this news story does not indicate whether any of these laws were broken/followed.
Posted by: larp | October 29, 2009 1:29 AM
This story is lacking some key information, officer reckless was on his way to a level 1 call (not a major emergency) lights and siren not needed, state law requires officers on level one calls to stay with the Flow of traffic, 72 in a 40 is definitely NOT staying with the flow of traffic He BROKE STATE LAWS AND POLICE PROTOCOL by speeding 72mph in a 40mph zone which then he struck and killed 10 year old Cole Berardi as he rode his bike.
Officer reckless broke the law and should be held accountable, his job is to uphold the laws not break the law, as for the people that doled out his punishment they are equally to blame in this situation and should be fired for not upholding the law. Like I needed another reason never to visit Texas, but I would never vacation in a place that the police are above the law.
Great work Officer reckless and the backward state of Texass!
Posted by: mrehiopian | November 7, 2009 10:54 AM
Isn't it standard procedure that a law enforcement officer be given a day off anytime his/her firearm is discharged in the line of duty. Is that a state thing? True in TX?
The spin this journalist puts on the article makes it look like paid-time-off though...even some kind of reward. Spooky.
I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of this. Where's Bill O'Reilly?
Posted by: regal70 | November 25, 2009 3:27 PM
People never cease to amaze me. And by amaz, I mean sicken.
Posted by: Shopalu | March 14, 2010 9:14 PM
fuck the police...if this was my kid you wouldnt have to ask what kind of punishment this guy would get...cuz there would be only one...
Posted by: Bob | April 16, 2010 4:57 PM
I think the idea why some citizens are appalled is because the punishment to crime ratio is so high for a citizen in comparison to a police officer.
Posted by: Online Reputation Management | July 12, 2010 5:03 AM
what the people who have not been in law enforcement need to understand is that they cannot vote in a law telling a department "don't use your sirens cause i don't want the noise disturbing Wheel of Fortune" and then get pissed off when accidents occur. It's sad, it's tragic, it's something that officer will have nightmares about for the rest of his life, but it's not something you lock him up for.
Posted by: Startup Consultant | July 15, 2010 1:25 AM
How is tis not manslaughter? If a non-police officer was driving at speed, hit somebody and killed them, they'd be charged.
One law for them, one for us. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 22, 2010 4:04 AM
Police today are no longer protectors they have become bullies who get away with anything.
Posted by: sell gold for cash | July 23, 2010 7:34 AM
As per government low is same for everyone even he is in a police or not.As a civilian, if I hit a child on a bicycle while at or under the speed limit, I'd be in deep trouble. This officer did the same, only while violating the speed limit. Just because he's a police officer, that doesn't give him the right to be speeding without his sirens.police officer is also punished by government.
Posted by: sell old cell phones | August 7, 2010 3:04 AM
The usual things that they make us citizens do if we had done what he did. Police are so far above the law, maybe its because they swear to an oath on a book full of lies. Did they do a blood screen or swab for his dna?
Posted by: cash for unwanted gold | August 10, 2010 4:51 AM
Crime rate is rapidly expanding now. So, I think Police should be held to a much higher standard of conduct. As should all politicians. But sadly, BOTH of these fields tend to attract bottom feeders and maladjusted malcontents
Posted by: diet for weight loss | August 12, 2010 6:25 AM
thats seems very bad to know such a irresponsible attitude people should raise thier voice
Posted by: Antique Bathroom Vanity | August 17, 2010 6:31 AM
Usually I agree with you Ed but you are wrong in this case. There is no comparison between this incident and the act of a civilian. A civilian would have had no justification in speeding on that stretch of road. This officer was justified but failed to follow procedures.
Posted by: recycle old cell phones | August 20, 2010 7:41 AM
People who commit crimes against police officers should face stiffer penalties than those who commit the same crime against civilians.
Posted by: sell cell phones | August 25, 2010 8:58 AM
Why? You're against equal protection under the law? Or what makes police officers better than "civilians"?
Oh, sorry, you're just promoting your cell phone website.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 25, 2010 9:01 AM
lol @147... Yes, 146 is a sentence copy/pasted from comment 4.
It looks like this thread has a spam infection... speaking of which... I've got some dirt-cheap beachfront property along the gulf coast for sale. If you're interested, please email me at oilspillsRkewl@BP.com
;-)
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 25, 2010 9:08 AM
Man, usually my good friend Antique Bathroom Vanity and I agree on the same things, but Startup Consultant here is making a pretty convincing argument. I'm just not sure what to think anymore! I guess I'll continue to sit on the fence until Free Online Credit Report chimes in, he's the Charles Dickens of spambots.
Posted by: Imrryr | August 25, 2010 9:15 AM
crime is day by day increasing a lot. the police should really be much more strict in taking action and also their way.
Posted by: Teak Furniture | August 28, 2010 5:44 AM
I think police should have more protection, but they should also have more responsibility to go along with it.
Posted by: Home Foreclosures | September 1, 2010 1:46 AM
I'm not opposed to that as long as the police are also held to a higher standard.
Posted by: Internet Marketing Services | September 2, 2010 9:26 AM
no doubt the police is very strict. still it needs a lot more increase of their skills and command over the crime. crime has no limit. It will still increase. the police should just focus only on eliminating the crime rather than reducing it at times.
Posted by: Mary Austen | September 6, 2010 12:02 AM
Officer reckless broke the law and should be held accountable, his job is to uphold the laws not break the law.
Posted by: Online Slander | September 6, 2010 2:43 PM
its really unbelievable thats a partiality which people should not neglect there should be a heavy protest made against it as some one's life had gone and a punishment like as nothing
Posted by: Thomas Austin | September 10, 2010 7:42 AM
this is really pathetic how irresponsible the cops can be this shows a life is not worth but your position is more worthful
Posted by: Max Axler | September 11, 2010 6:57 AM
kill a kid? - how could someone,do this type of cruelity....
Posted by: W. Ayres | September 12, 2010 7:10 AM
It amazes me that the dead kid wasn't charged with destroying police property........I think police should have more protection, but they should also have more responsibility to go along with it.
Posted by: SEO Services | September 13, 2010 5:49 AM
Well the thing that really bothers me is that these same cops who don't think that they should be held to even the same standard
Posted by: SEO content | September 16, 2010 11:50 AM
Alex, if his sirens had been on, perhaps the child would have been aware of the officer's approach and had a chance to get out of the way, this is pretty obvious. police should focus even more now on the criminals.
Posted by: Phil Barron | September 18, 2010 1:10 AM
The anecdotal stories we hear are just the tip of the iceberg. This homicide is just one example of the police being unable to police themselves, and covering their own.
Posted by: work from home opportunities | September 20, 2010 4:55 AM
These things are very common these days,but the bitter verity is that we do not come to know about them,either the authorities have their palms greased or simply they are slumbered.....so it is better to accept this without getting aghasted....
So the only thing i need to tell the teenagers is that"plz wear helmets while driving and don't try to overstrip anybody on the road"......
Posted by: Mykalai Kontilai | September 22, 2010 9:24 AM
I think where you go wrong in reporting this as egregious is the sureness with which you think an average citizen would be criminally charged under that exact same circumstances.
Posted by: Danny DeMichele | September 23, 2010 10:22 AM
This is indeed an appalling story...but still we have to accept it as this thing prevails in any one or the other part of the world but we hardly come to know about it!!so it is better to take precautions from our side only!!!!!
Posted by: Nightly Business Report | September 27, 2010 8:16 AM
I'm surprised the grand jury didn't at least find some kind of negligent homicide or similar crime. Even if it was in response to a call, speeding like that is criminal behavior, period.
Posted by: Bathroom Furniture | September 28, 2010 9:01 AM
And Fletcher proves my point, again. For some people, the cops absolutely can do no wrong, ever like politicians etc,...
Posted by: Mykalai Kontilai | October 12, 2010 6:46 AM
Sure... then in using science and logic if it was not the fault of the cops then it must be the fault of the kid hitting the cop car with his brain matter
Posted by: Mykalai Kontilai | October 19, 2010 6:11 AM
How does these cops get away with these stuff all the time??
are they forgetting what the law states?
Posted by: E Cig Smoker | October 26, 2010 2:39 PM
It amazes me that the dead kid wasn't charged with destroying police property.......
Posted by: Nightly Business Report | October 27, 2010 12:08 PM
The anecdotal stories we hear are just the tip of the iceberg. This homicide is just one example of the police being unable to police themselves, and covering their own. Thanks for sharing with us..
Posted by: Capital Gold Group | December 10, 2010 4:26 AM
So many of your police misconduct stories come out of Texas that I'm starting to think the real underlying problem is the existence of Texas rather than corruption or double standards.
Posted by: J Hass Group | December 23, 2010 2:31 AM
The thing that really bothers me is that these same cops who don't think that they should be held to even the same standard, believe that cops deserve better protection under the law.
Posted by: Amy Laurent | December 27, 2010 4:13 AM
And Fletcher prove my summit, yet again. used for a number of nation, the cops extremely can do no mistaken, increasingly akin to politicians and so on,...
Posted by: Lawyer in Miami | August 23, 2011 7:21 AM
@I think police should have more protection, but they should also have more responsibility to go along with it.
-good point!
Posted by: Logan Michaels | September 28, 2011 8:23 PM