BULLSHIT DOUBLE STANDARDS!!

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 7, 2005
13,696
161
63
53
www.myspace.com
#1
Cop's death ruled murder

Lincoln man faces 15 years to life in drunken hit-and-run


Eric Kenneth Dungan faces a state prison sentence of 15 years to life after being found guilty Tuesday of second-degree murder in the hit-and-run traffic death of Rocklin Police Officer Matthew Redding.

A Placer Superior Court jury took just one day to convict the 26-year-old Lincoln man of murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

The verdict brought tears and satisfaction to John and Marilyn Redding, parents of the victim.

"We were just shaking before the verdict, and when they read it, it was just this feeling of relief," said Marilyn Redding. "I feel that a big weight has been lifted off our shoulders."

A key element to bringing a second-degree murder charge in a traffic case is proving that a person showed "a wanton disregard for human life."

Prosecutors tried to establish Dungan's "implied malice" in spending a night drinking, ignoring three warnings by a cabdriver not to drive, text-messaging on his cell phone as his truck approached Redding on Highway 65 and fleeing the scene after hitting the officer.

In addition, they stressed that Dungan served at Beale Air Force Base and attended weekly sessions at which personnel were warned about the dangers of drinking and driving.

Those sessions should have given Dungan a heightened awareness about driving drunk, lead prosecutor Daniel Gong said in closing arguments Monday.

Dungan's attorney, Michael Bowman of Sacramento, tried to convince the jury his client's actions did not merit a murder charge. He acknowledged Dungan made poor decisions to drive and be inattentive but said his client never meant to injure or kill anyone.

On Friday, Dungan took the stand and told the jury that it was his fault that Redding was dead.

"I'm totally responsible," he said under questioning from Bowman.

Moments later, answering a question from Gong, Dungan said "I should not have driven that night."

Marilyn Redding said Dungan's decision to take the witness stand may have hurt his case.

"It allowed the jury to see what kind of person he is and that he was lying," she said.

While on the stand, Dungan said he lied to a California Highway Patrol investigator immediately after the accident about having seen Redding's face just before his truck hit the officer.

He said Friday that he didn't see Redding. He said he didn't know what he'd struck -- "if it was a dog or a sign or something. I just didn't know."

Asked why he'd lied to the CHP investigator, Dungan said it was because he was scared.

"I'd never been in a situation like that," he said.

Redding, 29, was killed as he was diverting traffic at 4 a.m. from the fast lane of Highway 65 near the Stanford Ranch Road exit. He was assisting with traffic because other law-enforcement officers had made a traffic stop of several suspects considered to be dangerous.

Redding set up traffic cones, waved a flashlight to oncoming vehicles and was standing outside his patrol vehicle, which had its emergency lights flashing, prosecutors said.

A forensics expert testified that Dungan's blood-alcohol level was 0.17 percent or 0.18 percent when he came upon Redding.

Under California law, a person is considered legally intoxicated at 0.08 percent.

Prosecutors Gong and Joe Hoffmann called nearly 40 witnesses during the trial, which ran four weeks.

Placer Superior Court Judge Larry D. Gaddis scheduled sentencing for April 26.

Hoffmann said Dungan must serve at least 15 years of his murder sentence.

"He will not be getting off early for any good behavior," he said.

Hoffmann said the manslaughter charge carries a sentence of four to 10 years in state prison. An enhancement for fleeing the scene would add another five years, he said.

However, Hoffmann said the manslaughter term is expected to run concurrently with the murder sentence, meaning Dungan would serve no extra time beyond the 15-years-to-life term.

Hoffmann said he hopes the verdict may bring some closure to Redding's family and friends.

He said the verdict serves as notice to Dungan of how he has "permanently scarred" the lives of the officer's family and friends.

Marilyn Redding said she feels "justice has been served."

But, she said, "John and I think of Matthew all the time. Our lives will never be the same."





Last year, on off duty officer, whose blood alcohol level was over twice the legal limit, killed an EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY when he ran the child over as he crossed the street, and NEVER stopped. He drove to his home where they arrested him.

He was found guilty of wreckless driving, and got sentenced to FIVE FUCKIN' YEARS. NO MURDER charge, NO hit and run, NOT EVEN a FUCKIN" DUI!!

WTF is that shit?? This pretty much tells us that our lives dont matter to the system as much as the lives of the officers.....even when the officers are the ones commiting the crimes.

Dont get me wrong, I think BOTH are equally as tragic. My problem is with the TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT sentences for two similar crimes.

Discuss....
 

Gas One

Moderator
May 24, 2006
39,741
12,147
113
46
Downtown, Pittsburg. Southeast Dago.
#5
i was reading the san diego tribune today

heres a hit and run clip that happened here in san diego.

"Prosecuters say the driver of the car was eric joseph leeman, 20. Leeman faces several felony charges, including second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter with intoxication, and hit-and-run causing death. If convicted, he could be sent to prison for 15 years to life"

to quote part of your story

asdopmoas said:
A key element to bringing a second-degree murder charge in a traffic case is proving that a person showed "a wanton disregard for human life."
so basically hitting someone and killing them + bieng drunk when it happens = arguably, a wanton disregard for human life

what i have problem with is these extra charges bieng tacked on that mean the same thing. to me, second degree murder and "hit and run causing death" should be the same thing. unfortunately, these two things together make a 15 to life sentence.....????

chances are most people will get 15 and serve half which seems somewhat right for killing someone when you were drunk driving esp if its a hit and run







...i guess the fact that police officers are 'protecting and serving" serves as more of a kudo in court. like when the dude gets his first offense hes let off easy. 5 years in comparison to serving half of 15 (7 and a half) aint too much different

but yeah, they definately get more leeway.


PS: fuck the cops
 
May 10, 2002
3,391
4
38
41
#6
thing is....these double standards are in the courtroom

now you think about applying those double standards on the streets when people are pulled over/shot/tazed/beaten by police. double standards that arnt written documented or noted.
 

Arson

Long live the KING!!!!
May 7, 2002
15,795
10,860
113
#7
Another double standard is, whenever a cop is on trial, and its a hung jury, the DA will drop the charges, when ever its a average joe, they refile, 2-3 times.
 
Aug 24, 2003
6,091
131
0
#8
who cares he was going to go to prison no matter what cause he ran someone over when he was drunk and kept going. so you're mad because you think he should have gotten less time?

maybe the cop who ran over the 8 yr old boy REALLY didnt know, this guy did and he said he knew he hit the person and kept going... ON THE STAND. he admitted lieing... to the police... ON THE STAND... wtf? his dumbass probably could have gotten less time if he didnt take the stand for whatever reason he did. the whole point is this guy fucked over his self by taking the stand and the cops familys lawyers ripped him up like some pitbulls on a steak... just like they would have did to a cop if the cop said ... "yeah i hit something and knew it and kept going regardless, then lied to police about it"
 

Arson

Long live the KING!!!!
May 7, 2002
15,795
10,860
113
#9
M BUTCHER 206 said:
who cares he was going to go to prison no matter what cause he ran someone over when he was drunk and kept going. so you're mad because you think he should have gotten less time?

maybe the cop who ran over the 8 yr old boy REALLY didnt know, this guy did and he said he knew he hit the person and kept going... ON THE STAND. he admitted lieing... to the police... ON THE STAND... wtf? his dumbass probably could have gotten less time if he didnt take the stand for whatever reason he did. the whole point is this guy fucked over his self by taking the stand and the cops familys lawyers ripped him up like some pitbulls on a steak... just like they would have did to a cop if the cop said ... "yeah i hit something and knew it and kept going regardless, then lied to police about it"
are you a cop?
 
Aug 24, 2003
6,091
131
0
#11
Mr Arson said:
are you a cop?
why would you think im a cop just because in this particular instance i see that its mostly the guys fault he got what he got?

im not saying all cops are right, fuck no. its just in this case the guy did everything you need to do to get fucked over with a massive sentence. #1. ran someone over and kept going regardless of if it was a cop or not. #2 tried to get away with it AGAIN by lieing to the police. #3 if this wasnt bad enough, he essentially reiterates what the prosecution needed to say to prove he was guilty when he took the stand and really fucked himself then.

its like OJ simpson. everybody knows his dumb ass did it and lied to the police about it then even tried to leave the country but he didnt get on the stand say he diid like this guy did. maybe the guy thought that he would get off easy by admitting it... well in this particular case it most definitely wouldnt have worked out that way and the guilty didnt get off easy

now maybe i was a little off base by bringing up the 8 yr old girl getting hit by the cop and him getting a lighter sentence but all i did was speculate since i dont know anything about that case and why he may or may not have gotten off easier.
 

Arson

Long live the KING!!!!
May 7, 2002
15,795
10,860
113
#12
M BUTCHER 206 said:
why would you think im a cop just because in this particular instance i see that its mostly the guys fault he got what he got?

im not saying all cops are right, fuck no. its just in this case the guy did everything you need to do to get fucked over with a massive sentence. #1. ran someone over and kept going regardless of if it was a cop or not. #2 tried to get away with it AGAIN by lieing to the police. #3 if this wasnt bad enough, he essentially reiterates what the prosecution needed to say to prove he was guilty when he took the stand and really fucked himself then.

its like OJ simpson. everybody knows his dumb ass did it and lied to the police about it then even tried to leave the country but he didnt get on the stand say he diid like this guy did
killing a 8 year old is worse then killing a grown man, and what do you think the cop thought the 8 year old was a speed bump? your either a cop, and arguing cause your bored.
 
Aug 24, 2003
6,091
131
0
#13
Mr Arson said:
killing a 8 year old is worse then killing a grown man, and what do you think the cop thought the 8 year old was a speed bump? your either a cop, and arguing cause your bored.
i dont know i was just speculating... why dont you look it up and lets figure it out because other wise this is pointless.
 
Apr 7, 2005
13,696
161
63
53
www.myspace.com
#14
c'mon mane....read the fuckin' title of the thread.

I'm talkin' about the double standards in reference to the sentencing of cops vs. joe public.

I in NO way condone what EITHER of these cats did. I do however feel that a GREAT INJUSTICE was done here.

NOT for the drunk drivers, but for the Family of the young boy, whom FROM DAY ONE, knew what was going to happen once it went to trial, and that is lighter sentencing and prefferential treatment for the officer.

The system showed him more mercy then he showed that child AS HE RAN HIM OVER AND KEPT GOING.