The officers in question were NOT hired to patrol said beach.
Might want to look at the AP article:
Might wanna read this article, linked in post #41 on this very thread:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/news/article/0,1375,VCS_121_4773533,00.html
Which provides, in relevant part:
*There are no lifeguards stationed at Mandalay Beach, so Oxnard police drive the beach sporadically but do not perform lifeguard functions, Crombach said. The beach is a small part of a large patrol area. *
So no, they were not hired to patrol the beach. They were hired to be city cops.
We read the article better than you did. The beach is, as you quoted and I bolded, part of a patrol area. So they were hired to be largely city cops who occasionally patrol a beach.
ISTM that the success of a criminal charge would depend on the specificity, or lack thereof, of California law. If it’s unspecific to driving through largely nonvehicular recreational areas where a driver might routinely encounter anything from kids playing to people sleeping, then I suspect the training that actual lifeguards up and down the California coast have long received on the subject might be argued to be the de facto standard for due diligence.
I would expect that they would also occasionally patrol residential neighbourhoods, occasionally patrol industrial areas, occasionally patrol rural areas, etc. – as well as any number of non-patrol general policing duties. If patrolling the beach was a regular part of their jobs, then it is reasonable to state that they were hired to patrol the beach. It would not be reasonable to state that they were hired to only patrol the beach.
Bear in mind that there is a significant difference between patrolling on a beach, as the police in question were doing as they had been hired to do, and simply driving past a beach area on a road patrol while observing the beach, or responding to an emergency on the beach. What it comes down to, is if the police were patrolling the beach, even on an occasional basis, they should have taken care given their knowledge that people lie about on beaches and in the shelter of dunes.
The police were not responding to an emergency when they ran over the woman’s head. The police knew or should have known that people lay about on beaches and in the shelter of dunes. The police had the opportunity to have one of them exit the vehicle and spot it past blind drops. Despite this, the police chose to charge on blindly, resulting in their killing a woman. That is at least negligence, and in my opinion, gross negligence.
Whether the degree of negligence was such as to be criminal would depend on further facts that have not been brought forward at this time. For example, were the police larking about.
Following a cluster of deaths by vehicles on beaches in California several years ago, the state established specific rules for lifeguards who might be using vehicles to patrol a beach. Those rules included a requirement that lifeguards be given training that included an awareness of the “hop out and look under the vehicle if you stop” rule.
For budgetary or other reasons, that municipality never chose to employ full-time lifeguards. Since the municipality did not employ lifeguards, the rules regarding lifeguards–including training–did not happen to apply to police officers directed to include beaches in their patrol area. Those officers never received the training to stop and look beneath the vehicle because their action was not covered under the law that imposed such training on lifeguards.
Given that it took the state of California 80 years, or so, to come to a realization that such a rule should be required, I think it is a bit presumptuous to either assume that the police officers “shoulda knowed” or that the municipality “shoulda knowed” that they ought to include special training for their police officers who were not employed as lifeguards.
Hindsight is 20/20. I’m sure that various claims of negligence will be brought up at any trial for wrongful death, but it appears to me that a claim of “gross negligence” directed at the officers, personally, is an emotional reaction to a tragedy.
Given the times, I will be unsurprised if the California legislature amends their law to extend the lifeguard rules to cover police, rescue, and, perhaps, all municipal and county vehicles entering beaches. However, it is a bit harsh to insist that two individuals had to have been aware of a procedure that it took the State years to recognize and which does not appear to hve been part of their training.
It does not take any special training to know that you should look where you are driving.
Now you are changing your story. You initially complained of gross negligence because they did not get out and look on the ground. Since it would appear that they have been patrolling the same beach in the same manner for a great many years with no incident, they probably had an expectation that they were safe in driving where they did.
They may well be found negligent. I just find the scorn heaped on them by people who have not heard actual testimony of the event (and who are willing to shift perspective as necessary to maintain that scorn) unfortunate.
I am not changing any story. They should look where they are driving. If they can not see where they are driving, then one of them should spot the driver. That does not take any special training. It is a very simple concept – look before you leap.
And yet accidents like this happen every day all over the country. It’s a simple concept that all folks know, but occasionally people make mistakes. All it takes is a moment’s inattention. You’re always supposed to know what’s going on around you in a car, yet people hit other cars, pedestrians, motorcycles, bicycles, chlidren because “they didn’t see them”. That’s why they are called accidents.
Unless you can prove something beyond that, I don’t see where this case as the information has been presented to us rises to anything beyond that. As others have said, there may be recourse in a wrongful death civil suit, but you seem to be holding these cops to a higher standard than would normally apply in an area where they received no special training.
You are entirely correct in this, as I see from cites provided below your post. I withdraw that comment and apologize for making it.
They were not hired to patrol the beach.
Cartooniverse
That’s what it sounds like to me. Complacency killed this woman. The officers were doing what they had done on dozens of uneventful trips, possibly shooting the breeze and definitely not paying attention.
I expect the outcome will be a training program that stresses that you must be alert at all times, pay attention to what you are doing. The beach is likely to have people lying on it anywhere at any time. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
And that will do the job until a number of uneventful years pass and complacency rears up again.
As someone who grew up on SoCal beaches, I see this as a tragic accident. Nothing more. The lifeguards on our beaches (City of Newport Beach) drive jeeps, our cops ride ATVs and also drive SUVs. Lifeguard supervisors drive pick-up trucks. It can be hard to see sunbathers on uneven dunes, but that doesn’t mean that no vehicles should be used on a beach, ever. These accidents are rare now.
And someone above posted about how “She should have expected to be safe, healthy and unmolested in all ways.” Oh please- this is silly. “In all ways?” Sheesh.
Anyway, I am saddened by this, but I am sure as hell not freaking out about it. Accidents happen.
Sad, tragic accident. Emphasis on accident.
Another SO CAL resident here. On most beaches, the lifeguards drive along existing tire tracks in the sand for the most part, and folks are smart enough not to lay there. Any time the leave that track they are very slow and careful. I have never worried about being run over. This is a fluke, though I would rather have lifeguards than cops on the beach. They have police powers similar to park rangers, can write tickets, etc. Save the cops for cop stuff. Hire some lifeguards already.