Drunk Chicago Cop Kills Two in Fatal Accident [Archive]

Luna

04-23-2009, 09:53 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cop-dan-ryan-fatal-crashapr11,0,464812.story?page=1

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Protests-Against-Cop-in-Drunken-Crash-Continue.html (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Protests-Against-Cop-in-Drunken-Crash-Continue.html)

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chaos-at-Courthouse-When-Cop-Released-on-Bond.html (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chaos-at-Courthouse-When-Cop-Released-on-Bond.html)

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6756384 (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6756384)

http://chicagocopwatch.org/2009/04/1206/ (http://chicagocopwatch.org/2009/04/1206/)

Two DePaul students burned to death in a car crash on the Dan Ryan Expressway after being hit by the SUV of off-duty drunk Chicago police detective Joseph Frugoli. He has repeated moving violations, all of which were thrown out or dropped. Friends and families of the victims are claiming unfair treatment after courts released him on bail. [I included the last link because it was the only citation I found for a bail amount, but its legitimacy is debatable.]

I have a class with a girl who's a friend of both victims. She says there are rumors that the DA will attempt to discredit the victims with irrelavent information by announcing that they were known in their circle of friends as tag artists, and claiming that they had pulled over on the expressway to leave a piece on some concrete. She says they had a flat tire, and phone records would support that they had called a friend for a ride late that night. There are also claims that the trial date has been postponed, but I haven't found an article mentioning that.

There's the possibility of a protest this weekend, but the location hasn't been verified. It may be in front of city hall or the police station Frugoli had been assigned to. There have also been fundraisers and silent art auctions to help the families of the victims.

If the offender had been an ordinary civillian, they would not have gotten bail for those charges, nor would have so many moving violations been disregarded. I don't know if his license had ever been suspended like anyone else, but at this rate, it looks like it should have been revoked. The Illinois DMV stipulates that repeat offenders with violations occurring within 7 years of each other receive penalties twice as harsh as ones given to violators with no recent violations.

Thanatyr

04-23-2009, 10:20 PM

I can't think of the right words to use in this situation... Should he get off of even one of the charges it will be a blatant calamity that will show the justice system to be a mockery of what it claims to stand for. While it may not stand for much, my condolences go out to the families and friends of the victims.

TW501

04-23-2009, 10:21 PM

I'm going to reserve judgement until I can find out more about this. Obviously it is a highly emotional tragedy, but the bail was fair in my opinion.

NoxieDC

04-23-2009, 10:21 PM

Connections always help. Simple. The police want to do all they can so their name stays as clean as possible. I doubt many people have the courage to do what is truly right in more serious situations so they resort to what is right to them, the lesser "good" (which is only good for them and not the general community).
EDIT: how is it fair TW501?

Related to the actual accident: this is why weed is better than alcohol. You cannot kill someone when you're high. You try to run over someone on a field at night. Can't do it, they see the light. "Is that a firefly? Oh my God it's knocking over shrubs!" (Bill Hicks) :guitar:

d3viant

04-23-2009, 10:26 PM

Let's all pass judgment before any facts are decided.

TW501

04-23-2009, 10:35 PM

how is it fair TW501?
Because it's not like bail is unique to him. A hefty bail was imposed, and it was paid. I've seen plenty of cases of auto-related deaths and even outright murder where the suspect gets bail. It's not as if it's a unique thing granted to this one guy.
Related to the actual accident: this is why weed is better than alcohol. You cannot kill someone when you're high. You try to run over someone on a field at night. Can't do it, they see the light.
Not really sure what your point is here. It's not like the guy wouldn't have been drinking if there had been pot present. That statement is pretty irrelevant to the issue.

Luna

04-23-2009, 11:13 PM

Because it's not like bail is unique to him. A hefty bail was imposed, and it was paid. I've seen plenty of cases of auto-related deaths and even outright murder where the suspect gets bail. It's not as if it's a unique thing granted to this one guy.

That is true. I can't say I know much about typical bail amounts, but a bond that requires someone to use real estate or similar collateral ranks pretty damn high. I'd say the more surprising aspect is the fact that he's had several other moving violations, and relatively recent ones, none of which seemed to result in more than a slap on the wrist, if that. At least he's lost his badge. I have no idea about the status of his license though.

Fatstogey

04-24-2009, 04:56 AM

Because it's not like bail is unique to him. A hefty bail was imposed, and it was paid. I've seen plenty of cases of auto-related deaths and even outright murder where the suspect gets bail. It's not as if it's a unique thing granted to this one guy.

Not really sure what your point is here. It's not like the guy wouldn't have been drinking if there had been pot present. That statement is pretty irrelevant to the issue.

Those typical bail amounts are for regular citizens. Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. They need to be made an example of. If our law enforcement doesnt follow the law then who will?

And like the OP said. now all they are trying to do is discredit the victims. Which is very law enforcement like.

NoxieDC

04-24-2009, 07:26 AM

Because it's not like bail is unique to him. A hefty bail was imposed, and it was paid. I've seen plenty of cases of auto-related deaths and even outright murder where the suspect gets bail. It's not as if it's a unique thing granted to this one guy.

Not really sure what your point is here. It's not like the guy wouldn't have been drinking if there had been pot present. That statement is pretty irrelevant to the issue.
I am not fully aware of this person's situation but he is a policeman, an enforcer of the law. And if he is held equal to the situation of a regular citizen then there is almost no need for his kind. They should provide an example for the ordinary man.

And Bill Hicks was a comedian. That was most clearly a joke (well, maybe not for you).

arthur11

04-24-2009, 09:09 AM

We do not know for fact whether they pulled over to tag but a phone record is pretty slim evidence of them not doing so, but then there is slim evidence of them doing so, unless there is a tag...Either way, it matters not, and i dont think it is a bad enough crime to cancel out the level of illegality regarding the situation surrounding their deaths.

The policeman should be sent down for being a general nonce, but then, 500,000 thousand? and someone paid it, i think if he paid it then thats fair enough, its a reasonable sum, enough to screw you over. I would like to think i could have the option to pay bail if i killed two people accidently and had to live with it, as well as loose my career. Think about it, he now has no job and a heavy criminal record which would most likely stop him now from getting a decent new one + no-one likes him and he has a drinking problem, hes just abit fucked really. Let him crawl in a hole and die, i would say.

On a sidenote people always cry for blood if a cop gets busted, some kind inferiority complex, not to say this guy shouldnt get done, just this seems to always be the way. Do you think if he had accidently run over a couple of fellow cops people would give such a shit? Its just one of these facts. Not that i love cops, ive had my fair share of nobhead bobbies but i have a healthy respect for them; i have no idea what condition i would be in if i had to shovel shit/hate from people aswell as deal with scummy men everyday for 5 years or more.

You could argue , 'well thats what they signed up for', but at the end of the day, everyone has limits. Meh, whatever, as i said, take away his car and license permanently and watch him drink away his small pension, cant really call that living free.

magicalgirlj

04-24-2009, 09:12 AM

that is terrible news.

Exploits

04-24-2009, 09:14 AM

Those typical bail amounts are for regular citizens. Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. They need to be made an example of. If our law enforcement doesnt follow the law then who will?

They do follow the law. I wouldn't use a single bad apple to discredit the entire apple tree farm. The law is equal before all (In theory), and regardless of what your opinions are of police officers, bail is the same amount for the same crimes for every one. Just because he's an officer doesn't mean his bail is doubled, and his crimes were done off-duty (In this case), so he was a citizen when they occured regardless.

Now if he killed two people while drunk on duty in a police cruiser, I would understand. Otherwise, this is perfectly legitimate and to change it now would simply spread controversy on both sides of the fence.

Luna

04-24-2009, 09:55 AM

We do not know for fact whether they pulled over to tag but a phone record is pretty slim evidence of them not doing so, but then there is slim evidence of them doing so, unless there is a tag...Either way, it matters not, and i dont think it is a bad enough crime to cancel out the level of illegality regarding the situation surrounding their deaths.

Even though the car burned to a crisp, forensics should be able to identify any items that may have been used to make a piece. To my knowledge, there is no tag in that area to speak of. But as you said, either way, I hardly think potential petty misdemeanors warrant vehicular manslaughter, even if he had been on duty.

There was no chase involved, and they were not suspect in anything criminal at the time. Had they coincidentally been speeding in a car of similar color/make/model to a suspect vehicle involved in a manhunt or chase from a major crime scene, and an on duty officer accidentally slammed into them after they blew a tire, then it would have been a mere tragedy as opposed to the air of controversy it seems to carry now.

They do follow the law. I wouldn't use a single bad apple to discredit the entire apple tree farm. The law is equal before all (In theory), and regardless of what your opinions are of police officers, bail is the same amount for the same crimes for every one. Just because he's an officer doesn't mean his bail is doubled, and his crimes were done off-duty (In this case), so he was a citizen when they occurred regardless.

Now if he killed two people while drunk on duty in a police cruiser, I would understand. Otherwise, this is perfectly legitimate and to change it now would simply spread controversy on both sides of the fence.

Very true. I intended to direct my original comment about harsher penalties for moving violations to the fact that the officer in question had a record. I'm not entirely sure if people are claiming the fact that he received and made bail is where the leniency occurred, or if it was his driving record, or both.

________________

If the defense attempts to argue that he was pulling over to make a citizen's arrest for the alleged tagging, or to notify an on-duty officer, could it influence opinions either way? What would warrant vehicular manslaughter or similar event?

Exploits

04-24-2009, 10:06 AM

Very true. I intended to direct my original comment about harsher penalties for moving violations to the fact that the officer in question had a record. I'm not entirely sure if people are claiming the fact that he received and made bail is where the leniency occurred, or if it was his driving record, or both.

True enough, he did have a record, but the fact that he was acquitted for each and every single charge makes that record moot, even though they were all very real crimes. If he was charged on his other misdemeanors, then the bail and sentence would have been raised to my understanding. But again, since he was never convicted, this doesn't happen.

If the defense attempts to argue that he was pulling over to make a citizen's arrest for the alleged tagging, or to notify an on-duty officer, could it influence opinions either way? What would warrant vehicular manslaughter or similar event?

Nothing would warrant it. The fact that he was intoxicated already shatters most defenses if the Crown has a lawyer with so much as half a brain. In all cases of self-defence or necessity, the bad done has to be outweighed by the bad avoided. Attempting to citizen arrest or warn officers that two young adults were tagging a highway does not at all balance out the fact that he ran into them and killed them both.

He's a Mentalist

04-24-2009, 10:11 AM

Whatever... onto the bigger news of the day. This isn't as serious as I initially thought it would be. Phone records don't prove shit. He could have been calling his friend to come and tag on the bridge, or setting up some plan just in case a cop came by. I am not buying the whole flat tire so I am going to call a friend trick.

phone record is pretty slim evidence of them not doing so

If they don't have an actual voice-copy of the phone call then it is mere heresy.

Tires could flatten due to a head-on collision.

Luna

04-24-2009, 10:14 AM

Nothing would warrant it. The fact that he was intoxicated already shatters most defenses if the Crown has a lawyer with so much as half a brain. In all cases of self-defence or necessity, the bad done has to be outweighed by the bad avoided. Attempting to citizen arrest or warn officers that two young adults were tagging a highway does not at all balance out the fact that he ran into them and killed them both.

I meant that more as a general question. Say for instance a civilian had direct knowledge that two individuals in a car were planning to plant/detonate an explosive near a building with a large number of people inside. Would those circumstances warrant the civilian causing a potentially fatal car accident? I know that's not at all the case here--I'm just curious what people think on that scale.

Exploits

04-24-2009, 10:31 AM

I meant that more as a general question. Say for instance a civilian had direct knowledge that two individuals in a car were planning to plant/detonate an explosive near a building with a large number of people inside. Would those circumstances warrant the civilian causing a potentially fatal car accident? I know that's not at all the case here--I'm just curious what people think on that scale.

It wouldn't be up to the citizen to kill them to prevent such a thing. It would be up to the citizen to report it to the proper authorities. Nothing warrants death or murder for any reason, except direct threat of death (A gun fight, for example), and even in those cases police tend to incapacitate or disarm instead of kill if possible. Even if it was just a small thing like vandalism, and a man pulls over to stop it but he hits the gas instead of the brake (Or something) and kills the two people there, he'd be culpable of manslaughter.

There's just no excuse.

He's a Mentalist

04-24-2009, 10:35 AM

Exploits

04-24-2009, 10:37 AM

There is an excuse called, "accident." The cop will do sometime though because he was drunk on the job. There is no way he can get out of it. He was off-duty and drunk. The police office won't waste their credibility on some moron who couldn't stay in character even when off duty.

They've supported him so far though, and thats the controversy here. Otherwise you're entirely right. These type of people lose their badge because being an officer is a 24/7 job, not just when you clock in for your shift. You've got an image to uphold and a type of integrity to portary. This isn't that type.

Meta

04-24-2009, 11:06 AM

The DA's excuse is,the least,very lame.

Fatstogey

04-26-2009, 07:46 AM

They do follow the law. I wouldn't use a single bad apple to discredit the entire apple tree farm. The law is equal before all (In theory), and regardless of what your opinions are of police officers, bail is the same amount for the same crimes for every one. Just because he's an officer doesn't mean his bail is doubled, and his crimes were done off-duty (In this case), so he was a citizen when they occured regardless.

Now if he killed two people while drunk on duty in a police cruiser, I would understand. Otherwise, this is perfectly legitimate and to change it now would simply spread controversy on both sides of the fence.

It doesnt matter if hes off duty. Hes still a law enforcement officer.

Also some law enforcement has their officers carry firearms while off duty. And they are still expected to stop a felony if they see it happening.

Either way. He should know better. And the point is you dont hear about them getting caught. I know plenty of cops whove gotten away with it. Also i know children of police officers whove gotten away with everything short of murder.

Theyll let each other get away with plenty. And now just because someone was actually hurt they cant avoid the publicity. If that cop had been pulled over drunk by another cop. He would have probably let him go. Or in actually take him home in the squad car.

dyne

04-26-2009, 07:54 AM

Exploits

04-26-2009, 11:59 AM

It doesnt matter if hes off duty. Hes still a law enforcement officer.

Also some law enforcement has their officers carry firearms while off duty. And they are still expected to stop a felony if they see it happening.

Either way. He should know better. And the point is you dont hear about them getting caught. I know plenty of cops whove gotten away with it. Also i know children of police officers whove gotten away with everything short of murder.

Theyll let each other get away with plenty. And now just because someone was actually hurt they cant avoid the publicity. If that cop had been pulled over drunk by another cop. He would have probably let him go. Or in actually take him home in the squad car.

Baseless assumptions. Yes, yes, we all know he's an officer "on-duty" 24/7. But when he's off the clock and on the clock remain two very, very different things. Crimes of corruption while committed behind the badge pale over crimes done by a person who simply owns one. Whats worse, a cop that extorts while off-duty, or a cop that extorts while on-duty? Should be a simple answer.

There are two parts to a criminal; The mens rea (The mind) and the actus reus (The action). You need an actual criminal act and a criminal intent to be convicted of a crime. To say that this man should have "Known better" purely because he's an officer would be admitting that every single court case in history was unjust and requires appeal because everyone else didn't "know better". But thank God ignorance isn't an excuse.

Stangely enough, I also know a lot of poor, African-Canadian people who do nothing but piss cops off who have gotten away with a lot of shit too. Are they just as bad? Are they also up to just as little good? Probably not, yet also perhaps. I hate to quote myself, but honestly Fats;

They do follow the law. I wouldn't use a single bad apple to discredit the entire apple tree farm.

Excellent use of fallacies though, really. And aside the fact that I've already iterated a few of the points you brought up myself.

Fatstogey

04-27-2009, 07:20 AM

Baseless assumptions. Yes, yes, we all know he's an officer "on-duty" 24/7. But when he's off the clock and on the clock remain two very, very different things. Crimes of corruption while committed behind the badge pale over crimes done by a person who simply owns one. Whats worse, a cop that extorts while off-duty, or a cop that extorts while on-duty? Should be a simple answer.

There are two parts to a criminal; The mens rea (The mind) and the actus reus (The action). You need an actual criminal act and a criminal intent to be convicted of a crime. To say that this man should have "Known better" purely because he's an officer would be admitting that every single court case in history was unjust and requires appeal because everyone else didn't "know better". But thank God ignorance isn't an excuse.

Stangely enough, I also know a lot of poor, African-Canadian people who do nothing but piss cops off who have gotten away with a lot of shit too. Are they just as bad? Are they also up to just as little good? Probably not, yet also perhaps. I hate to quote myself, but honestly Fats;

Excellent use of fallacies though, really. And aside the fact that I've already iterated a few of the points you brought up myself.

No one said he was a criminal. Mens rea isnt required for involutary vehicular manslaughter. Also that depends on the laws in that particular jurisdiction.

Also as for "knowing better" or not. I never said that had any role to play at all in guilt. He'll be convicted regaurdless. I said he should not have received bail because he was a law enforcement officer.

And yes he should have known better. Because those who enforce the law should be held to higher standard. Whats called into question for me are any DUI stops this particular officer had made. Because hes lost all credibility from me, because he committed an act he is specifically engaged in preventing on a daily basis.

@ Dyne. I might. But i like smoking weed and drinking too much, and i dont wanna be held to higher standard.

Exploits

04-27-2009, 08:04 AM

No one said he was a criminal. Mens rea isnt required for involutary vehicular manslaughter. Also that depends on the laws in that particular jurisdiction.

Also as for "knowing better" or not. I never said that had any role to play at all in guilt. He'll be convicted regaurdless. I said he should not have received bail because he was a law enforcement officer.

And yes he should have known better. Because those who enforce the law should be held to higher standard. Whats called into question for me are any DUI stops this particular officer had made. Because hes lost all credibility from me, because he committed an act he is specifically engaged in preventing on a daily basis.

Yes he does know better, but like I said (And meant, my mistake), "knowing better" doesn't result in any higher sentence or bail cost or nothing. Once again, everyone is equal before law, at least in theory.

redfable

04-27-2009, 08:35 AM

this is horrible

blunt_smoker_420

05-07-2009, 03:26 PM

Yes he does know better, but like I said (And meant, my mistake), "knowing better" doesn't result in any higher sentence or bail cost or nothing. Once again, everyone is equal before law, at least in theory.
In theory yes, something similar like this happened during a police chase. A cop going like 80 miles an hour hit another cop laying road spikes in an police SUV and dam near killed him, nothing was done about it.

Exploits

05-07-2009, 03:40 PM

In theory yes, something similar like this happened during a police chase. A cop going like 80 miles an hour hit another cop laying road spikes in an police SUV and dam near killed him, nothing was done about it.

Thats called a job hazard. Unless Internal Affairs discovered some kind of long-standing rivalry between the two cops, know that the cop that drove knew the other was laying spikes, and had a dashcam that proved he drove into him, then nothing happens. It's like saying one steelworker accidentally knocking his friend off a skyscraper while handing tools around is as guilty of murder as someone shooting someone in the face.