The prompting for this topic is based on the letter to the Editor in the May 18 Enterprise as it brought tears to my eyes.

Link = SoMdNews.com: Death of ‘The Lawn Mower Man’ (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120518/OPINION/705189947/1084/death-of-the-lawn-mower-man&template=southernMaryland)

:pete:

I have Jimmy on ignore. Somebody tell me, is he doing a critique of the old movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/)? I imagine it's one of those D.T. hallucinations.

The prompting for this topic is based on the letter to the Editor in the May 18 Enterprise as it brought tears to my eyes.

Link = SoMdNews.com: Death of ‘The Lawn Mower Man’ (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120518/OPINION/705189947/1084/death-of-the-lawn-mower-man&template=southernMaryland)

:pete:

about the January death ofthe lawnmower man

The prompting for this topic is based on the letter to the Editor in the May 18 Enterprise as it brought tears to my eyes.

Link = SoMdNews.com: Death of ‘The Lawn Mower Man’ (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120518/OPINION/705189947/1084/death-of-the-lawn-mower-man&template=southernMaryland)


The victim's name was Buhrman Kenneth "Yogi" Baird, 87, also know as the Lawnmower Man, who was run down by a State Police Trooper Wesley Goldston who is back on duty with the "Automotive Safety Division".

Link = Trooper in Fatal Yogi Crash Back on Duty - Southern Maryland Headline News (http://somd.com/news/headlines/2012/15012.shtml)

The State Police Trooper did not even get a ticket for failure to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. It is just a one (1) point ticked and 3 points if it contributes to an accident.

Link = Supporting Documents: Investigation Into Death of Buhrman Kenneth Baird (Yogi) (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/)

:pete:

Whatsa matter Jimmy?..you run out of "new material" to work with?

:coffee:

The State Police Trooper did not even get a ticket for failure to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. It is just a one (1) point ticked and 3 points if it contributes to an accident.

You have to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. If a sidewalk or shoulder is provided, pedestrians are not allowed in the roadway. Look up MD code 21-506. Why should the trooper get a ticket for hitting someone he probably couldn't see based on the lighting conditions and who was in a place he was not supposed to be ?

It is a sad accident, but the way it happened probably unavoidable. It had been a miracle going on 10 years that Yogi hadn't been hit before.

The victim's name was Buhrman Kenneth "Yogi" Baird, 87, also know as the Lawnmower Man, who was run down by a State Police Trooper Wesley Goldston who is back on duty with the "Automotive Safety Division".

Link = Trooper in Fatal Yogi Crash Back on Duty - Southern Maryland Headline News (http://somd.com/news/headlines/2012/15012.shtml)

The State Police Trooper did not even get a ticket for failure to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. It is just a one (1) point ticked and 3 points if it contributes to an accident.

Link = Supporting Documents: Investigation Into Death of Buhrman Kenneth Baird (Yogi) (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/)

:pete:

If you had read the 'Supporting Documents' you would have read this witness:

Gentleman was first observed walking down the center of the travel lane on Beck Rd. I swerved and sounded horn. He was pushing a lawnmower. I parked to go into Skyrocket ??? Lodge. I again observed the gentleman walking in the center of the travel lane on ???-Dean Rd. A white SUV attempted to miss him at the same time as the pedestrian was moving to the shoulder. There was another vehicle in the opposite travel lane that precluded the first vehicle from striking the pedestrian. It was dark with very limited street lighting. Pedestrian was wearing very dark clothing

The next witness passed right by 'Lawnmower Man' and never saw him.

So it's pretty obvious by witness accounts that visibility was very poor, the guy was wearing dark clothing, walking in the “travel lane” and almost got hit by someone else.

So, what is your problem with this again; except that it's sad that 'Lawnmower Man' was ACCIDENTALLY killed? :shrug:

Based on witnesses, it sounds like other folks "missed" him even when he was in the middle of the travel lane. I guess those folks are better drivers than the cop (expert driver) who hit him. Maybe those folks who missed him should be working for "Automotive Safety Division".

Based on witnesses, it sounds like other folks "missed" him even when he was in the middle of the travel lane. I guess those folks are better drivers than the cop (expert driver) who hit him. Maybe those folks who missed him should be working for "Automotive Safety Division".

According to a witness (Elizabeth Quade) Goldston appeared to be driving at the normal posted speed limit. Quade also stated that she was not surprised that Baird was hit. She stated "She and her co-workers often thought and discussed that he would get struck eventually, since he so frequently walked in the center of travel lanes. She recalled that there were several occasions where her coworkers had almost struck Baird, and would then yell through their windows to him to not walking in the roadway."

The other witness (Eddleman) stated: "Eddleman recalled having a second or less to react to the pedestrian because of the dark environment and dark clothing's lack of conspicuity. Eddleman was able to drive around the pedestrian and sound his horn at him. He felt that he had narrowly missed striking him, and that the maneuver may have only been possible because he was operating a small sports car designed for greater than normal handling."

You have to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. If a sidewalk or shoulder is provided, pedestrians are not allowed in the roadway. Look up MD code 21-506. Why should the trooper get a ticket for hitting someone he probably couldn't see based on the lighting conditions and who was in a place he was not supposed to be ?

It is a sad accident, but the way it happened probably unavoidable. It had been a miracle going on 10 years that Yogi hadn't been hit before.


Even if Yogi was in violation of MD Code Transportation 21-506 (http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/maryland/md-laws/maryland_laws_transportation_21-506) and some people do not believe that to be an accurate report, then even with a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road then that does not give the Police Officer the justice to run over the pedestrian and to strike him down.

I myself believe that cop needs to be prosecuted for at least man slaughter.

If a deer is standing in the road then we drivers are to stop or try to avoid hitting a deer, and most deer are killed because the deer jump out into the road so quickly that the driver does not have the time to react and to hit their brakes, but Mr Baird did not have the ability to jump or to move quick if he was alone but him having his lawn mower meant he was a very slow moving person and the cop had plenty of time to see the pedestrian and to avoid the killing.

:shrug:

Since this happened, lots of folks have driven down that section of road at night to see what it's like (including me). You'd have to be the worst driver in the world if you can't avoid an object there, even if it's in the middle of the road. Just look at how long that guy had been out there walking in the middle of the road without getting hit by "regular drivers". So, it means one of 2 things. That cop is actually a crappy driver and has no business representing Automotive Safety, or he was speeding and/or distracted. Take your pick.

According to a witness (Elizabeth Quade) Goldston appeared to be driving at the normal posted speed limit. Quade also stated that she was not surprised that Baird was hit. She stated "She and her co-workers often thought and discussed that he would get struck eventually, since he so frequently walked in the center of travel lanes. She recalled that there were several occasions where her coworkers had almost struck Baird, and would then yell through their windows to him to not walking in the roadway."

The other witness (Eddleman) stated: "Eddleman recalled having a second or less to react to the pedestrian because of the dark environment and dark clothing's lack of conspicuity. Eddleman was able to drive around the pedestrian and sound his horn at him. He felt that he had narrowly missed striking him, and that the maneuver may have only been possible because he was operating a small sports car designed for greater than normal handling."

What about the SUV? How'd they miss? SUV's aren't exactly known for their road handling capabilities.

The report also states that the officer was going 52mph in a 40mph zone. It also states that he was driving on the white line when he was hit.

Charles Eddleman of St. Leonard and Elizabeth Quade of Mechanicsville, both wrote statements saying that while conditions were dark, there was still sufficient street lighting, and a full moon that night

Both witnesses stated they were able to see Baird, or at least what they believed to be an object in the road, before the impact – one witness from 25 feet away and another from 150 feet.

The report also stated that witnesses saw Baird try to move away from the oncoming vehicle.


I read the article about the police officer not seeing him and him just coming out right in front of him, so the rumors state. I kept thinking something wasn’t right about all that. I thought, how could you not see him if you were going the speed limit and not distracted? He never walked in the middle of the road, always staying to the shoulder, and that part of the road is very well-lit. So I went back there two nights later, just about the time the accident occurred, and I rode the posted 40 mph.

This is only my opinion, but I don’t see how it was possible to hit anything in the road if you were going the speed limit and not distracted by a cellphone or some other device. I drove the road from where it intersects across from Outback three times up to the intersection where Yogi was hit. I believe then and still believe that if you were going the speed limit and paying attention, you would not hit anything in the middle of that road.


I think it was an unfortunate accident. Could it have been avoided? Sure, just like many accidents.

cop had plenty of time to see the pedestrian and to avoid the killing.
:

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

So it's pretty obvious by witness accounts that visibility was very poor, the guy was wearing dark clothing, walking in the “travel lane” and almost got hit by someone else.


That witness is not very credible, because the police report declares that there was a full moon, page 9 of 25 per "Investigation (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/)", and there is a very bright street light on the location, and there is near a full half mile of flat level road which the cop was driving down, and the police vehicle did have fully functioning headlights too.

So the visibility was NOT "poor" as is claimed, and since the lighting and visibility was clear then the color of Mr Baird's clothing becomes irrelevant, because it was the cops job of driving to look ahead and to avoid any accident.

:nono:

So the visibility was NOT "poor" as is claimed,

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

That witness is not very credible, because the police report declares that there was a full moon, page 9 of 25 per "Investigation (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/)", and there is a very bright street light on the location, and there is near a full half mile of flat level road which the cop was driving down, and the police vehicle did have fully functioning headlights too.

So the visibility was NOT "poor" as is claimed, and since the lighting and visibility was clear then the color of Mr Baird's clothing becomes irrelevant, because it was the cops job of driving to look ahead and to avoid any accident.

:nono:

You should spruce up his memorial. It's looking a bit scraggly.

That witness is not very credible,
So the visibility was NOT "poor" as is claimed, and since the lighting and visibility was clear then the color of Mr Baird's clothing becomes irrelevant,
:nono:

I thought color was always relevent with you Jimmy...

Have you paid me back yet for defacing my government buildings & forcing me to support a child that hates you these days?

What about the SUV? How'd they miss? SUV's aren't exactly known for their road handling capabilities.

The report also states that the officer was going 52mph in a 40mph zone. It also states that he was driving on the white line when he was hit.

I think it was an unfortunate accident. Could it have been avoided? Sure, just like many accidents.

The SUV was the vehicle that struck Baird. :shrug:

The 52 mph is a calculation. The report also states: "I was not able to account or adjust for variables unique to this collision, such as Baird becoming entangled in the lawnmower".

Goldston said he was doing between 40-45, Quade reported that he appeared to be going at around 45, and Eddleman reported he appeared to be doing between 40-45. It was so dark that Quade thought the lawnmower was a shopping cart. Oney-Schmih reported that she believed the accident could not have been avoided. And the final report did not determine fault at Goldston. :shrug:

It could have been avoided if Baird hadn't been in the road in the first place at night. Outside of that could it have been avoided? It sounds like it was going to happen eventually anyway.

That witness is not very credible, because the police report declares that there was a full moon, page 9 of 25 per "Investigation (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/)", and there is a very bright street light on the location, and there is near a full half mile of flat level road which the cop was driving down, and the police vehicle did have fully functioning headlights too.

So the visibility was NOT "poor" as is claimed, and since the lighting and visibility was clear then the color of Mr Baird's clothing becomes irrelevant, because it was the cops job of driving to look ahead and to avoid any accident.

:nono:

Every witness stated the lighting was poor, Baird was wearing dark clothing, and the driver of the sports car also nearly hit him.

Is anyone even asking the question why this guy was walking in the middle of the street in the first place and expect not to get hit when it's dark out? One of the witnesses even stated they prayed they he doesn't get hit one day. Well it happened and you folks want to blame the cop?

Even if Yogi was in violation of MD Code Transportation 21-506 (http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/maryland/md-laws/maryland_laws_transportation_21-506) and some people do not believe that to be an accurate report, then even with a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road then that does not give the Police Officer the justice to run over the pedestrian and to strike him down.

I myself believe that cop needs to be prosecuted for at least man slaughter.

If a deer is standing in the road then we drivers are to stop or try to avoid hitting a deer, and most deer are killed because the deer jump out into the road so quickly that the driver does not have the time to react and to hit their brakes, but Mr Baird did not have the ability to jump or to move quick if he was alone but him having his lawn mower meant he was a very slow moving person and the cop had plenty of time to see the pedestrian and to avoid the killing.

:shrug:
You ever meet a guy who goes by the handle Clem?

One thing people neglect is that since he was in a police vehicle, the glare from his MDT (mobile data terminal) could've been reflecting off the windshield and he may not have been visible over the glare, especially if he was wearing dark clothing. I don't think the cop intentionally tried to hit Yogi.

Even if Yogi was in violation of MD Code Transportation 21-506 (http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/maryland/md-laws/maryland_laws_transportation_21-506) and some people do not believe that to be an accurate report, then even with a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road then that does not give the Police Officer the justice to run over the pedestrian and to strike him down.

You make an allegation that the officer intentionally ran him down. There is nothing in the published record about the accident that would support that allegation.


I myself believe that cop needs to be prosecuted for at least man slaughter.

You seem to be a bit light on basic things like the definition of manslaughter.


If a deer is standing in the road then we drivers are to stop or try to avoid hitting a deer, and most deer are killed because the deer jump out into the road so quickly that the driver does not have the time to react and to hit their brakes,

Plenty of deer, livestock and lost cargo get hit just being stationary in the roadway. There is a reason cars are required to have marker lights and brake lights. Even the Amish buggies and ag equipment have reflective triangles to make them visible at night to motor vehicle approaching from the back.

The only gripe I have about the Yogi Baird accident is that it was the MSP that investigated one of their own. Given the centralization of accident investigation in Maryland, that was probably unavoidable, having brought in someone from outside of the institution (e.g. the Baltimore PD or some other agency that has that capability) would make people more confident in the results.

Is anyone even asking the question why this guy was walking in the middle of the street in the first place and expect not to get hit when it's dark out?

According to the records contained in the accident report, Yogi had suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1992 which left him with some cognitive disabilities. This was someone who lived more or less independently in the community when he maybe didn't have the capability to do so without creating a risk to himself and others.

You should spruce up his memorial. It's looking a bit scraggly.


It is noteworthy that the Yogi memorial is so visible from a rather long distance away, and the memorial is not even touching the roadway, and yet it can be seen rather clearly even at night because it is close to the big bright street light where Yogi was killed, along with the rather bright light coming from the building on the opposite side of that road.

According to the "Investigation (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/)" page 13 of 28, it declares that the body of Yogi was dragged 216 feet and further on was the Police Jeep at a total distance of 277 feet, so the cop had to plow into Yogi without even hitting his brakes.

To claim that a driver (any driven) let alone the fact that this cop was in the "Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division", and yet he could not see a Man and lawn mower in the road in front of his vehicle.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?


Of course I was not in the vehicle - duh.

This thread is not about me, the point is not about me, the entire subject is not about me.

This is about a beloved member of our community who was senselessly and needlessly run down and killed by the Maryland State Police.

:nomoney:

To claim that a driver (any driven) let alone the fact that this cop was in the "Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division", and yet he could not see a Man and lawn mower in the road in front of his vehicle.
:

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

You make an allegation that the officer intentionally ran him down. There is nothing in the published record about the accident that would support that allegation.


Well you started that when you make the horrific claim that Yogi was violating "Look up MD code 21-506 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man.html#post4831134)" as if that made so the cop did not need to yield the right of way.

Saying the cop did not "INTENTIONALLY" run over Yogi is just a way of justifying the wrong done. As in the cop might have been drunk, or distracted by his cell phone, or some other reason, and in fact the cop and the police report fails to give any legitimate reason for the cop to run over the lawnmower man.



You seem to be a bit light on basic things like the definition of manslaughter.


I say the Maryland State Police are a bit more "light" about it then am I.



Plenty of deer, livestock and lost cargo get hit just being stationary in the roadway. There is a reason cars are required to have marker lights and brake lights. Even the Amish buggies and ag equipment have reflective triangles to make them visible at night to motor vehicle approaching from the back.


On a clear night with full moon and street lights and long straight roadway and Jeep headlights then the driver is to see whatever is in front of him while he is driving.

To say that Yogi needed to have had some reflector to be seen is a fraud - much akin to saying Yogi violated MD Transportation code 21-506.

Surely all of us have driven at night and we see cats and squirrel in the road, sometimes boxes or tire pieces in the road, and it is our job as drivers to watch the road ahead of us.



The only gripe I have about the Yogi Baird accident is that it was the MSP that investigated one of their own. Given the centralization of accident investigation in Maryland, that was probably unavoidable, having brought in someone from outside of the institution (e.g. the Baltimore PD or some other agency that has that capability) would make people more confident in the results.


I agree with you here as the MSP had no business covering up for their own.

But where is our Sheriff Office in this case? and the State Attorney has let us down too.

:otter:

...and in fact the cop and the police report fails to give any legitimate reason for the cop to run over the lawnmower man.


You completely missed the part about Yogi being in the road, huh? It's not like the cop jumped the median or ran into some grass to hit him. He was in the roadway.

You completely missed the part about Yogi being in the road, huh? .

Hard to believe..since Jimmy was obviously riding shotgun.

According to the records contained in the accident report, Yogi had suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1992 which left him with some cognitive disabilities. This was someone who lived more or less independently in the community when he maybe didn't have the capability to do so without creating a risk to himself and others.

It seems to me if he had disabilities that should precluded him wandering around in the middle of the street someone somewhere should have done something.

Don’t interpret what I’m posting as saying I don’t care about his death. I am saddened by it. But that doesn’t demand the cop to be raked through the gutter as if it were anything other than an accident. Disabled or not, the guy was in the street at night. Apparently a common thing that was predicted would happen. I’m not saying he had it coming to him; but it sounds like something that was eventually going to happen.

You completely missed the part about Yogi being in the road, huh? It's not like the cop jumped the median or ran into some grass to hit him. He was in the roadway.


I did not miss that, but you and the cop say that as if it is some proclamation from God or some fantastic revelation which it is not.

That a pedestrian is in the road makes it the fault of the pedestrian for the cop to run him over is absurd. And in fact the cop would have been justified to run into the grass to stop himself from hitting the Man which he did not do.

It could have been that Yogi was walking across the road, and a pedestrian does have the right to be in the road to cross the road. As like a turtle might cross any road. And on that road there are no cross walks which means that if Yogi was crossing the road then he had the right to be in the road.

And what if there is a child illegally in the road, then the car drivers are to use their eyes along with their brakes because that is what is meant by driving. What if one hits a tree in the road? then the driver blames it on the tree for being in the road - no, they might blame it on a storm but not on the tree.

For a State Police Trooper to give the excuse that Yogi was in the road and that the Trooper does not see the man in front of his vehicle and under a street light, then that is a completely lame and unjustified excuse.

It is the driver's job to look and to react according to the road in front of him.

And lets not forget about the cop being in the "Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division".

:shrug:

I did not miss that, but you and the cop say that as if it is some proclamation from God or some fantastic revelation which it is not.

That a pedestrian is in the road makes it the fault of the pedestrian for the cop to run him over is absurd. And in fact the cop would have been justified to run into the grass to stop himself from hitting the Man which he did not do.

It could have been that Yogi was walking across the road, and a pedestrian does have the right to be in the road to cross the road. As like a turtle might cross any road. And on that road there are no cross walks which means that if Yogi was crossing the road then he had the right to be in the road.

And what if there is a child illegally in the road, then the car drivers are to use their eyes along with their brakes because that is what is meant by driving. What if one hits a tree in the road? then the driver blames it on the tree for being in the road - no, they might blame it on a storm but not on the tree.

For a State Police Trooper to give the excuse that Yogi was in the road and that the Trooper does not see the man in front of his vehicle and under a street light, then that is a completely lame and unjustified excuse.

It is the driver's job to look and to react according to the road in front of him.

And lets not forget about the cop being in the "Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division".

:shrug:

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

Well you started that when you make the horrific claim that Yogi was violating "Look up MD code 21-506 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man.html#post4831134)" as if that made so the cop did not need to yield the right of way.

If you are in a place you are not supposed to be, you dont have the right of way. I just quote from the accident report here:


For § 21-506, in the case at hand, sidewalks were not provided and improved shoulders were. According to the laws in place during the collision, the pedestrian, Baird, was required to be walking on the left shoulder facing toward traffic approaching him. At the moment of impact, the lawnmower went under the Jeep and was immediately moved down into the roadway, creating the curved scrape and gouge marks described above, pictured below and documented in the diagram. There were no marks perpendicular to the direction of travel for the roadway, only parallel, indicating that the lawnmower was in the southbound lane of Mervell Dean Road at impact. The lawnmower became lodged under the Jeep behind the front wheel, and the damage on the front and hood or the vehicle which identified the impact with the pedestrian was equally offset from the right side of the Jeep. That indicated that Baird was still standing behind the lawnmower pushing it when he was struck, and that both were in the roadway instead of the shoulder. While Baird was facing toward oncoming traffic, he was in the roadway and not the shoulder as required by law.



Unless you have any citations, comments or case law that indicate that this interpretation of the law by the investigator is wrong, you have no argument here.


Saying the cop did not "INTENTIONALLY" run over Yogi is just a way of justifying the wrong done.

Intentional as opposed to accidental.


As in the cop might have been drunk, or distracted by his cell phone, or some other reason,

While I dont believe that a blood alcohol test was done on the trooper (which should have been done), there is nothing in the record to suggest that he was intoxicated. His phone records were subpoenaed and he was NOT on the phone or sending any texts at the time of the accident.


and in fact the cop and the police report fails to give any legitimate reason for the cop to run over the lawnmower man.

The legitimate reason is that a person wearing camouflage clothing at night in the driving lane of a road may not be visible in time for a motorist to react. Others had barely avoided hitting him at previous occasions, including a couple of minutes prior to the accident.



To say that Yogi needed to have had some reflector to be seen is a fraud - much akin to saying Yogi violated MD Transportation code 21-506.

I didn't say that he was required to have a reflector, straw-man argument.

And yes, he was in violation of that section and a trooper or deputy could have written him a ticket (for whatever it is worth to write a ticket to someone who is known to be without assets and probably not able to attend a court date anyways).


But where is our Sheriff Office in this case? and the State Attorney has let us down too.

I dont believe the sheriffs office has jurisdiction in fatal accidents in Maryland. As I stated, it would certainly improve the confidence in the impartiality of the investigation if a different agency had been brought in to supervise the investigation of an accident with involvement of a trooper. That said, if you look through the long-form accident report, the evidence is pretty clear as to what happened.

Jimmy I think you should do some investigation tonight by walking back and forth along that stretch of road and count how many cars miss you so you can further prove your point and maybe like Al Sharpton with the Trayvon Austin case you can get justice for the lawnmower man.

Jimmy I think you should do some investigation tonight by walking back and forth along that stretch of road and count how many cars miss you so you can further prove your point and maybe like Al Sharpton with the Trayvon Austin case you can get justice for the lawnmower man.

Required attire for this test are black boots, dark green pants, a camouflage jacket and a dark hat.

If you are in a place you are not supposed to be, you dont have the right of way. I just quote from the accident report here:


For § 21-506, in the case at hand, sidewalks were not provided and improved shoulders were. According to the laws in place during the collision, the pedestrian, Baird, was required to be walking on the left shoulder facing toward traffic approaching him. At the moment of impact, the lawnmower went under the Jeep and was immediately moved down into the roadway, creating the curved scrape and gouge marks described above, pictured below and documented in the diagram. There were no marks perpendicular to the direction of travel for the roadway, only parallel, indicating that the lawnmower was in the southbound lane of Mervell Dean Road at impact. The lawnmower became lodged under the Jeep behind the front wheel, and the damage on the front and hood or the vehicle which identified the impact with the pedestrian was equally offset from the right side of the Jeep. That indicated that Baird was still standing behind the lawnmower pushing it when he was struck, and that both were in the roadway instead of the shoulder. While Baird was facing toward oncoming traffic, he was in the roadway and not the shoulder as required by law.



Unless you have any citations, comments or case law that indicate that this interpretation of the law by the investigator is wrong, you have no argument here.


I already gave the counter point in posting #30 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man-3.html#post4831616) but I surely will paraphrase it here:

The pedestrian walking in the street does NOT give any justification nor excuse for the State Police Trooper to run over top of said pedestrian.

You are just misusing legal mumbo jumbo (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mumbo%2Bjumbo) to blame the victim, or more correctly you are just quoting the police report which is doing that type of legality.



Intentional as opposed to accidental.


Touche - yes indeed, and yet I never said that it was intentional.

But being not-intentional is NOT opposed to being reckless or impaired or negligent or such as that.



While I dont believe that a blood alcohol test was done on the trooper (which should have been done), there is nothing in the record to suggest that he was intoxicated. His phone records were subpoenaed and he was NOT on the phone or sending any texts at the time of the accident.


What I read in the report first page is that the reporting officer arrived two (2) hours after the accident, and the offending Trooper was already gone from the scene, and some other Police officer said that there was no need to test for alcohol for the Trooper that struck the pedestrian, but THEY DID DO an alcohol and drug test on the dead body of the lawnmower man.

And if we scrutinize this farther, then the Police do sobriety check points for citizens when there is no crime or accident as the drunk driving check points are done to random citizens who have done nothing wrong - and yet here a cop runs over top of a pedestrian and drags his dead body some 277 feet but no drug or alcohol test was done on the cop.

I have heard it said (as rumor) in Hollywood that the cop was leaving the Hole-in-the-Wall bar and traveling to the Dew Drop Inn as he was known to do on other occasions, and that is the connecting road between the two bars. Even though it is just rumor there are lots of such stories floating all around St Mary's County because a lot of people do not buy into the unrealistic excuse that the cop could not see Mr Baird, see the link here in posting #1 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man.html).



The legitimate reason is that a person wearing camouflage clothing at night in the driving lane of a road may not be visible in time for a motorist to react. Others had barely avoided hitting him at previous occasions, including a couple of minutes prior to the accident.


You buy into that nonsense far too easily.

The night that the cop ran down the lawnmower man was a full moon (visible without clouds) and directly under a street light and a large lighted building on the opposite side of that road and the Trooper had nearly a full quarter mile of visible roadway before hitting the pedestrian.

And I really wonder about the credibility of the witness as claiming the visibility was poor which might be true for some elderly woman, but the Trooper was a healthy Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division officer in a well functioning police vehicle.



I didn't say that he was required to have a reflector, straw-man argument.


You brought up the reflectors which was completely outside of the criteria or the reality.

It was the cop who was to use his two eyes and to use his brakes and the cop did not.



And yes, he was in violation of that section and a trooper or deputy could have written him a ticket (for whatever it is worth to write a ticket to someone who is known to be without assets and probably not able to attend a court date anyways).


That is just slander, or more correctly it is just demonizing or talking down the dead man.

Mr Baird did have a retirement check and he had very helpful friends, and he was old but not really mentally impaired.



I dont believe the sheriffs office has jurisdiction in fatal accidents in Maryland. As I stated, it would certainly improve the confidence in the impartiality of the investigation if a different agency had been brought in to supervise the investigation of an accident with involvement of a trooper.


You sure are hung-up on those technicalities, as like the Sheriff's jurisdiction,

I would say it is the jurisdiction of any decent person, as like we need a Gomer Pyle to make a Citizen's Arrest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM) because the police we have here will not take issue with the killer of our lawnmower man.



That said, if you look through the long-form accident report, the evidence is pretty clear as to what happened.


No - it is not.

In fact the report does not give any real explanation at all.

To blame the dead man - yes, but to explain the cop - no.

:nomoney:

And if we scrutinize this farther, then the Police do sobriety check points for citizens when there is no crime or accident as the drunk driving check points are done to random citizens who have done nothing wrong - and yet here a cop runs over top of a pedestrian and drags his dead body some 277 feet but no drug or alcohol test was done on the cop.

As I stated earlier in this thread, this is a valid concern. A civilian would have been subjected to a field sobriety test and probably a breathalyzer test after being involved in an accident with a fatality. I dont know whether MD has any specific law on this, but without a probable cause to subject the driver to such a test, his 4th and 5th amendment rights are the same as yours or mine. One reason he didn't get into trouble is because he kept his mouth shut and didn't create any probable cause for further investigation. Every citizen has that right, few make use of it. If after an accident the cop asks 'where did you come from', you can simply not say a word.



I have heard it said (as rumor) in Hollywood that the cop was leaving the Hole-in-the-Wall bar and traveling to the Dew Drop Inn as he was known to do on other occasions, and that is the connecting road between the two bars. Even though it is just rumor there are lots of such stories floating all around St Mary's County because a lot of people do not buy into the unrealistic excuse that the cop could not see Mr Baird, see the link here in posting #1 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man.html).

For someone who throws around words like 'slander' pretty quickly it is rather foolish to make those kinds of accusations without being able to back them up.


The night that the cop ran down the lawnmower man was a full moon (visible without clouds) and directly under a street light and a large lighted building on the opposite side of that road and the Trooper had nearly a full quarter mile of visible roadway before hitting the pedestrian.

Yet other drivers that night didn't see Yogi in the roadway until the last second or not until his lawnmower got hit. You must have real eagle-eyes there (or owl-eyes, for the night-vision).


And I really wonder about the credibility of the witness as claiming the visibility was poor which might be true for some elderly woman, but the Trooper was a healthy Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division officer in a well functioning police vehicle.

Of course you have to 'wonder', because her testimony contradicts your preconceived idea as to what happened.



You brought up the reflectors which was completely outside of the criteria or the reality.

I brought up the reflectors to illustrate that obstacles in the roadway are difficult to see at night as the main beam of low-beam headlights only illuminates 100ft or so. By requiring reflectors, the lower light intensity in the secondary beam/scatter is sufficient to alert a driver with average eyes to the presence of such an obstacle, be it an amish buggy or some marker barrels at a construction site.



That is just slander, or more correctly it is just demonizing or talking down the dead man.

Mr Baird did have a retirement check and he had very helpful friends, and he was old but not really mentally impaired.

Mr Baird lived in a trailer in someones yard and got by somehow on his pension. Yes, maybe he would have been able to pay a $75 fine or maybe one of his helpful friends could have driven him to the courthouse in Leonardtown to dispute the ticket. Having been almost run over multiple times before didn't motivate him to remain on the shoulder, I doubt that a fine or a trip to the courthouse would have achieved that goal.



You sure are hung-up on those technicalities, as like the Sheriff's jurisdiction,


I hope that if I am ever accused of a crime or wrongdoing that the investigating authorities stick to those 'technicalities'.


I would say it is the jurisdiction of any decent person, as like we need a Gomer Pyle to make a Citizen's Arrest because the police we have here will not take issue with the killer of our lawnmower man.

So now you have arrested him, now what ?

The states attorney would look at the case and say 'I have already received the investigative report on the accident and found that there is no reason to lodge charges. Nole prosequi, let the man go'. You would probably go away for false imprisonment for a while as citizens arrest is very limited in scope and pretty much restricted to situations where the lawman hasn't arrived yet or where he can't make an arrest due to the fact that he didn't see a crime committed but a victim or witness could.

Originally posted by JPC: The pedestrian walking in the street does NOT give any justification nor excuse for the State Police Trooper to run over top of said pedestrian.

:howdy: JPC! Streets are for cars, and sidewalks and shoulders are for pedestrians. A lawnmower is not considered a street worthy vehicle. This was an accident, period. The Trooper, as well as a private citizen, would not intenionally run someone down. It is very sad that this man died, but he was in the road where he shouldn't have been. How do you feel about the Amish girl that was killed last year? See link below. Will you take up the cause of her death, also, or any of the other sad, tragic accidents that have happened in SoMD? Come on, JPC, give it up, please.

SoMdNews.com: Community mourns girl's death in St. Mary’s buggy crash (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20111005/NEWS/710059389/0/southernMaryland&template=southernMaryland)

So now you have arrested him, now what ?

The states attorney would look at the case and say 'I have already received the investigative report on the accident and found that there is no reason to lodge charges. Nole prosequi, let the man go'.


I say we have already been over this from the very first posting and onward - that the State Attorney has failed us too.

And it is not as if this is something new - as the police and the State simply do not prosecute their own people, even when it is a beloved member of the community being run down by a State Trooper.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





:howdy: JPC! Streets are for cars, and sidewalks and shoulders are for pedestrians. A lawnmower is not considered a street worthy vehicle. This was an accident, period. The Trooper, as well as a private citizen, would not intenionally run someone down. It is very sad that this man died, but he was in the road where he shouldn't have been. How do you feel about the Amish girl that was killed last year? See link below. Will you take up the cause of her death, also, or any of the other sad, tragic accidents that have happened in SoMD?

SoMdNews.com: Community mourns girl's death in St. Mary’s buggy crash (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20111005/NEWS/710059389/0/southernMaryland&template=southernMaryland)


What I like about that link and its report is that it is the Sheriff Office doing the report (the last sentence) so it covers and contradicts a certain technicality that the other poster stood behind that the Sheriff might not have jurisdiction.

Plus that reports states that = "there is no evidence that speed, alcohol or other drugs were contributing factors in the crash" and this accident was at a turn in the road intersection which accounts for the not being seen in time for the driver to respond.

Even more important is that they do not blame the accident on the buggy or blame the dead girl, as they do blame Yogi for what the State Trooper did.



Come on, JPC, give it up, please.


I really resent that, and I do not want to join in with the gutless swine who give up on their own human decency.

You can give up so why do not you give up? and you be done with it?

Other people on this forum say that they ignore me and it is not hurting my feelings none, so "please" do not stay here on my account.

And really the person that brought this subject up this time was the letter in the local newspaper the Enterprise, see post #1 here on page #1, because this killing of Yogi still matters very much to many people in this community.

:barf:

Whatsa matter Jimmy?..you run out of "new material" to work with?

:coffee:

:lmao: Pot Meet Kettle!!

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

Hard to believe..since Jimmy was obviously riding shotgun.

Lemme guess: you were riding shotgun in the Jeep, right?

I say we have already been over this from the very first posting and onward - that the State Attorney has failed us too.

And it is not as if this is something new - as the police and the State simply do not prosecute their own people, even when it is a beloved member of the community being run down by a State Trooper.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





What I like about that link and its report is that it is the Sheriff Office doing the report (the last sentence) so it covers and contradicts a certain technicality that the other poster stood behind that the Sheriff might not have jurisdiction.

Plus that reports states that = "there is no evidence that speed, alcohol or other drugs were contributing factors in the crash" and this accident was at a turn in the road intersection which accounts for the not being seen in time for the driver to respond.

Even more important is that they do not blame the accident on the buggy or blame the dead girl, as they do blame Yogi for what the State Trooper did.



I really resent that, and I do not want to join in with the gutless swine who give up on their own human decency.

You can give up so why do not you give up? and you be done with it?

Other people on this forum say that they ignore me and it is not hurting my feelings none, so "please" do not stay here on my account.

And really the person that brought this subject up this time was the letter in the local newspaper the Enterprise, see post #1 here on page #1, because this killing of Yogi still matters very much to many people in this community.

:barf:

I would rather :faint: before you make ME :barf: At your request, I am outta here. At least, you get the resent part. How is that HUGE chip on your shoulder doing? You may want to see a doc, because I think it is festering, as in infected, in case you don't understand that word. One more thing...do you understand the definition of convoluted?..:shrug: Love and peace. mama

:lmao: Pot Meet Kettle!!

Nah..I'm just persistent. I kept asking hoping he would eventually answer.

I understand how that eluded you; most things do. :patonhead:

:coffee:

II really resent that, and I do not want to join in with the gutless swine who give up on their own human decency.
:

Oops. Too late.

Link = SoMdNews.com: Death of ‘The Lawn Mower Man’ (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120518/OPINION/705189947/1084/death-of-the-lawn-mower-man&template=southernMaryland)


I see a new person has given a more realistic explanation in the Enterprise newspaper to the Lady who wrote the letter, see below:
Link here = SoMdNews.com: May 25, 2012 - Yogi speaking from the grave (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120525/OPINION/705259961/1084/speaking-from-the-grave&template=southernMaryland)

My own explanation is very similar - in that the police and the State's Attorney do indeed know that Trooper Wesley Goldston did do wrong in the killing of Mr Baird, but the State and the police simply can not admit when their own do wrong.

Another recent (March 22, 2012) incident concerning a State Trooper from the Leonardtown barracks was that State police officer Cpl Paul Trossbach harassed a waitress in her restaurant, link HERE (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120504/NEWS/705049905/0/southernMaryland&template=southernMaryland), and when the cops do wrong then none of them show any chivalry or honor.

It does not matter if one disrespects a Woman or another one runs down the lawnmower man as the State and the police do not admit their own wrongs, and the Courts and Prosecutors help to cover up such events.

I had always thought that the police would be held to a higher standard and not to a lower standard, as in the police would be expected to follow every law more closely - but it does not work that way at all.

The police have some strange form of loyalty to each other to protect and defend each other even when the other cop(s) do wrongs, or even when one does horrible wrongs.

We as citizens and as human beings would think that the police would have the higher loyalties to the law and loyalty to the community and a loyalty to the dead lawnmower man - but no.

I myself say that everyone of them do share in the horrible guilt of Trooper Goldston, being every State police officer is guilty, every one at the Sheriff office shares that guilt, and the office of the State Attorney are all guilty for covering up the killing of Mr Baird.

I honestly do not see how anyone can continue working with Officer Goldston while that work includes pretending that he did no such wrong when he ran down the lawnmower man.

:liar:

I would rather :faint: before you make ME :barf: At your request, I am outta here. At least, you get the resent part. How is that HUGE chip on your shoulder doing? You may want to see a doc, because I think it is festering, as in infected, in case you don't understand that word. One more thing...do you understand the definition of convoluted?..:shrug: Love and peace. mama


I felt angry (resentful) when I wrote those words to you so it makes sense that my meaning was not well delivered, or that I said more then I now want to be said.

I did not mean to tell you to leave this thread or to stop posting here, and I apologize for giving that message to you.

If you or anyone want to discuss the subject or even those that post childish nonsense are all welcome and invited by me onto any discussion that I participate within, and I do not ask you or anyone to leave.

My resentment is that you made so polite a request for me to "give it up" as you wanting to shut up my feelings and you wanting to suppress what I am saying, and especially in this very deeply serious subject of a police officer killing a beloved member of our society.

If you do not care about this subject then you do not need to view it or to participate in the discussion, but if you just want to silence the discussion then that would make you on the side of those who only want to cover up and hush up the killing of the lawnmower man and to that I did get resentful.

I will try hard to post nicer in the future.

:flowers:

Nah..I'm just persistent. I kept asking hoping he would eventually answer.

I understand how that eluded you; most things do. :patonhead:

:coffee:

Your love affair with JPC is disturbing... :coffee: No wonder you won't take Arkie out... Afraid of the meow meow...:lmao:

[QUOTE=VoteJP;4832872]I felt angry (resentful) when I wrote those words to you so it makes sense that my meaning was not well delivered, or that I said more then I now want to be said.

I did not mean to tell you to leave this thread or to stop posting here, and I apologize for giving that message to you.

If you or anyone want to discuss the subject or even those that post childish nonsense are all welcome and invited by me onto any discussion that I participate within, and I do not ask you or anyone to leave.

My resentment is that you made so polite a request for me to "give it up" as you wanting to shut up my feelings and you wanting to suppress what I am saying, and especially in this very deeply serious subject of a police officer killing a beloved member of our society.

If you do not care about this subject then you do not need to view it or to participate in the discussion, but if you just want to silence the discussion then that would make you on the side of those who only want to cover up and hush up the killing of the lawnmower man and to that I did get resentful.

I will try hard to post nicer in the future.

:flowers:

Discussion is good. Harsh words not so good. In honor of Memorial Day. :flowers: Peace. :patriot:

Even more important is that they do not blame the accident on the buggy or blame the dead girl, as they do blame Yogi for what the State Trooper did.



Discussion is good. Harsh words not so good. In honor of Memorial Day. :flowers: Peace. :patriot:


I liked that one line which I said to you, so now I plan to send a letter-to-the-Editor regarding that one line.

Also I found in the Police' Accident Report (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/) that there was a surveillance camera at the PNC Bank which might have shown the killing of Yogi on video, and it will likely show what happened directly after the accident, as in it might show if the Trooper Goldston had an unknown passenger in the vehicle with him at the time of the accident, and the camera will show the visibility level at the time of death.

As it turns out both the Police Report and the State Attorney's failure to press any charge was all done without any reference to the PNC survelience video which was under subpena.

The different reports do state that they checked every thing else, as they checked Goldston's cell phone and the radio log and witness reports and checked Yogi's driving record and autopsy but there is no accounting of the surveillance camera - which is a huge omission.

So when the police disclosed the information they simply failed to disclose that video - which very likely might tell everything.

:whistle:

Also I found in the Police' Accident Report (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/) that there was a surveillance camera at the PNC Bank which might have shown the killing of Yogi on video, and it will likely show what happened directly after the accident, as in it might show if the Trooper Goldston had an unknown passenger in the vehicle with him at the time of the accident, and the camera will show the visibility level at the time of death.

The bank security footage was reviewed. It only showed occasional headlights passing in the background and didn't show anything related to the accident.

The bank security footage was reviewed. It only showed occasional headlights passing in the background and didn't show anything related to the accident.


You may have some private information but you do not disclose your source, and the Police Report plus the State's Attorney document and all other available info does NOT mention nor acknowledges the PNC Bank video except in that one line which declares that it was under subpena.

So even if in real life you are some cop yourself having confidential police information - then that does not nullify the fact that the case was closed before the video was scrutinized, and that the video details are not available to the public or to the County Times newspaper which sought the info under the Freedom of Information Act.

As such you need to disclose your own source or else your claim is very suspicious indeed.

And I would agree with Yogi (of old) that I have strong distrust in the integrity of the police as to revealing the truth.

:coffee:

You may have some private information but you do not disclose your source, and the Police Report plus the State's Attorney document and all other available info does NOT mention nor acknowledges the PNC Bank video except in that one line which declares that it was under subpena.

It is in the long form accident report.

The first version they received was in a format they couldn't read. They later received a second copy of the DVD that contained the required reader software.

Your love affair with JPC is disturbing... :coffee: No wonder you won't take Arkie out... Afraid of the meow meow...:lmao:

You really are broken, aren't you. :coffee:

It is in the long form accident report.

The first version they received was in a format they couldn't read. They later received a second copy of the DVD that contained the required reader software.


I do not doubt that the video recordings are somewhere, but claiming "it is in the long form accident report" means absolutely nothing, because that is equivalent to saying it is locked away in the State Police vault.

I guess I could ask the County Times if they know about the surveillance videos.

Plus the video(s) need to be scrutinized to see about the offending cop as to just whatever he did before and after the accident, including the weather visibility and if there was another passenger and such things as that, since if it is scrutinized correctly then this is not just seeking to view the lawnmower man getting creamed.

And for the record - State Police Trooper Goldston never said as to why he ran over Yogi, as Goldston never said why it was that he could not see the lawnmower man, and all we really get is the police telling us why it is that the lawnmower man is to be blamed for what Trooper Goldston did, which makes it into an extremely deficient accident report.

:whistle:

Nah..I'm just persistent. I kept asking hoping he would eventually answer.

I understand how that eluded you; most things do. :patonhead:


Actually it must have eluded your self because I did give you an answer way back on page 3 posting #24 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man-3.html#post4831501), and truly it is absurd to think that I was riding in the Police vehicle.

Also you keep doing the childish name-calling, as in whatever ":patonhead:" is expected to mean. It looks like an incorrect smilie code.

:nomoney:

and truly it is absurd to think that I was riding in the Police vehicle.:

ahh..so then it is equally absurd to think that your mentally deficient self has any more information than those involved in the investigation had.

But I figgered as much. ..just waiting for you to admit it. :buddies:

Plus the video(s) need to be scrutinized to see about the offending cop as to just whatever he did before and after the accident, including the weather visibility and if there was another passenger and such things as that, since if it is scrutinized correctly then this is not just seeking to view the lawnmower man getting creamed.

The video was reviewed. All that is visible in the subject timeframe are occasional headlights passing on the road in the background. It didn't show anything relating to the accident. Those cameras are set up to record the face of whoever is standing in front of the ATM, you have unreasonable expectations as to what information about stuff 200+ft in the background that camera is going to record. It's not like in CSI where they just post-process one frame and pick out the face of the evildoer from an automated database.


And for the record - State Police Trooper Goldston never said as to why he ran over Yogi, as Goldston never said why it was that he could not see the lawnmower man, and all we really get is the police telling us why it is that the lawnmower man is to be blamed for what Trooper Goldston did, which makes it into an extremely deficient accident report.


He did what anyone involved in a fatal accident should do: Shut up and let the facts sort themselves out. If at a later date it is beneficial to talk to investigators or the states attorney, you do so after getting throughly briefed by your attorney and with your attorney present. The cops know that, and that is why they rarely get in trouble. You could do the same, but I can see how that could be difficult for you.

The video was reviewed. All that is visible in the subject timeframe are occasional headlights passing on the road in the background. It didn't show anything relating to the accident. Those cameras are set up to record the face of whoever is standing in front of the ATM, you have unreasonable expectations as to what information about stuff 200+ft in the background that camera is going to record. It's not like in CSI where they just post-process one frame and pick out the face of the evildoer from an automated database.


I saw that written in the reports but the ATM at that Hollywood PNC Bank is on the opposite side of the building where the ATM camera is NOT on the side where Mr Baird got run down.

So I realize you are going according to the police report, but I know the PNC Bank and its ATM could not photo the accident scene by any means.

But I also know that the Bank has other surveillance cameras on its drive up windows area (the side of the accident) and another one on the front of the Bank (the side where police vehicle stopped) and yet these are simply ignored or suppressed and certainly unmentioned - so claiming the ATM saw nothing when the ATM camera was impossible to see anything is a fraud.

And AGAIN the idea would have been to see the Police vehicle AFTER the crash, and of seeing the visibility, instead of just trying to see the moment of impact, but all of that has been conveniently excluded.



He did what anyone involved in a fatal accident should do: Shut up and let the facts sort themselves out. If at a later date it is beneficial to talk to investigators or the states attorney, you do so after getting throughly briefed by your attorney and with your attorney present. The cops know that, and that is why they rarely get in trouble. You could do the same, but I can see how that could be difficult for you.


I see what Officer Goldston did by his failure to give any reason as to why he did not see or why he ran over Mr Baird to be extremely cowardly and immoral and a sign of criminality.

Plus if he like any citizen wants to take his right to remain silent then it is still his job to say that he chooses to remain silent, instead of people like yourself claiming that the cop chose to remain silent when it appears that no one in the investigation chose to ask the cop the appropriate questions.

And there was plenty of time for the cop to have his own Attorney present during questioning, and yet there is no record of any questioning, and yet the Police call this as an accident investigation without questioning the culprit.

What we have is a crime scene where they blame the lawnmower man (blame the victim) for what the killer did.

:eyebrow:

I saw that written in the reports but the ATM at that Hollywood PNC Bank is on the opposite side of the building where the ATM camera is NOT on the side where Mr Baird got run down.


So why do you keep harping on what it does or doesn't show ?



But I also know that the Bank has other surveillance cameras on its drive up windows area (the side of the accident) and another one on the front of the Bank (the side where police vehicle stopped) and yet these are simply ignored or suppressed and certainly unmentioned - so claiming the ATM saw nothing when the ATM camera was impossible to see anything is a fraud.


I doubt that those cameras are recorded. Typically those cameras would only be hooked up to a CCTV system to allow the tellers to see the drive-up customers faces during a transaction.



I see what Officer Goldston did by his failure to give any reason as to why he did not see or why he ran over Mr Baird to be extremely cowardly and immoral and a sign of criminality.


The right to remain silent is a very fundamental thing, right in the first couple of amendments of the constitution. No different from freedom of religion, press and the right to own guns. Doing so does not allow any inference regarding guilt or innocence.


Plus if he like any citizen wants to take his right to remain silent then it is still his job to say that he chooses to remain silent, instead of people like yourself claiming that the cop chose to remain silent when it appears that no one in the investigation chose to ask the cop the appropriate questions.


It becomes rather clear that you never read the report.

When contacted by the investigating officer, Goldston related through his attorney that he does not wish to make a statement and will only speak to internal affairs to the extent that he has to. I dont know how MD handles this, but statements to internal affairs are typically a personnel matter and can't be subpoenaed for outside legal proceedings.


And there was plenty of time for the cop to have his own Attorney present during questioning, and yet there is no record of any questioning, and yet the Police call this as an accident investigation without questioning the culprit.

See above.

It is certainly nice to get a statement from every driver in an accident, but there is really very little Goldston could have added to the findings.

What we have is a crime scene where they blame the lawnmower man (blame the victim) for what the killer did.


No crime was committed.

An accident happened and the party at fault for causing the accident was identified.

I was down in that area last night. Just to get an impression of it myself, I drove that portion of Mervel Dean both directions. Yeah, maybe Goldston could have seen a pedestrian in the roadway, but if for example he concentrated on an oncoming vehicle, it is certainly conceivable that he never saw the camouflage wearing black-booted Yogi until he hit him.

So why do you keep harping on what it does or doesn't show ?


There is a BIG difference between the ATM camera which would show nothing, and me harping on the other surveillance cameras which might show us plenty.

Only the ATM video is mentioned by you or by the police report, and the ATM is on the opposite side of Bank away from the crime scene - which makes the ATM video as worthless by every means.

There are OTHER surveillance cameras being on the side where the accident did happen, and another camera on the front of the Bank which might show the Police vehicle as it finally stopped, and those are either excluded or have gone unreported.



I doubt that those cameras are recorded. Typically those cameras would only be hooked up to a CCTV system to allow the tellers to see the drive-up customers faces during a transaction.


I can not fathom why you would make a claim as like that - but that kind of claim is what drives the suspicions.

You say "typically" and I say NEVER as in never does a Bank teller have any monitor to see the customers, and there is definitely no such charade going on in that Hollywood Bank, and of all the Banks that I have been into then never as in NEVER has there ever been a Bank teller with a camera monitor screen to view any customer as such a thing is just not done.

The cameras at every Bank is always recorded because the cameras are in case of a Bank robbery, and the local Banks have had a few robberies in SMC so the camera systems are all recorded.

It troubles me that you would make-up such an outlandish and unrealistic claim.



The right to remain silent is a very fundamental thing, right in the first couple of amendments of the constitution. No different from freedom of religion, press and the right to own guns. Doing so does not allow any inference regarding guilt or innocence.

When contacted by the investigating officer, Goldston related through his attorney that he does not wish to make a statement and will only speak to internal affairs to the extent that he has to. I dont know how MD handles this, but statements to internal affairs are typically a personnel matter and can't be subpoenaed for outside legal proceedings.


In this you are basically correct, and there is nothing that decent people can do about it.

The bigger problem is not that Officer Goldston is lying or just not telling, because the bigger problem is that the entire police dept and the Office of Attorney General are lying and covering up this killing of Mr Baird.

Here in St Mary's County we do not have citizens who will march on the streets or do protesting against the killing of our lawnmower man. So we are being forced to accept that the dead Yogi was to blame for what the State Police officer did, and that is a nasty lie which many of us find hard to tolerate.

No matter how much it is said that Yogi did this and Yogi did that and Yogi did so wrong - then NONE of THAT gives any reason or excuse or justification for the State Police to run over top of him and to kill our lawnmower man.

The police and the State Attorney are all hiding behind the law and hiding behind their badges and it is cowardly and dishonorable and it is a true disloyalty for our community.



It is certainly nice to get a statement from every driver in an accident, but there is really very little Goldston could have added to the findings.

No crime was committed.


I do not see how you or anyone can honestly say that, and yet officer Goldston himself is not saying any such thing.

Since officer Goldston gives no word otherwise - then manslaughter is indeed what he did do, and manslaughter is the obvious charge for prosecution.

Of course the charge could be worse since he might have been willfully negligent or impaired or some other defect.

The communities' only weapon is in our refusal to accept the obnoxious lie that Yogi is responsible for what the Police Officer did.



An accident happened and the party at fault for causing the accident was identified.

I was down in that area last night. Just to get an impression of it myself, I drove that portion of Mervel Dean both directions. Yeah, maybe Goldston could have seen a pedestrian in the roadway, but if for example he concentrated on an oncoming vehicle, it is certainly conceivable that he never saw the camouflage wearing black-booted Yogi until he hit him.


It is our own job as the driver to look ahead and to see in-front of our vehicle and to act or react according to the road condition and obstacles.

The Officer Goldston was to look ahead and he was not to run over Mr Baird.

See link here = Drivers to Exercise due care. = Md Code Transportation 21-504 (http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-504.html).

:eyebrow:

NFCU has monitors at the drive thru lanes.

The cameras at every Bank is always recorded because the cameras are in case of a Bank robbery, and the local Banks have had a few robberies in SMC so the camera systems are all recorded.

The cameras you are talking about are in the remote drive-through lanes. People dont rob a bank through a mailing tube. Maybe they are recorded, probably not. Why dont you go to the PNC and ask the branch manager. She would probably tell you.



No matter how much it is said that Yogi did this and Yogi did that and Yogi did so wrong - then NONE of THAT gives any reason or excuse or justification for the State Police to run over top of him and to kill our lawnmower man.

You keep framing it like this was an intentional act. Yogi walked in the street when he shouldn't have and got run over. It's really not complicated.



Since officer Goldston gives no word otherwise - then manslaughter is indeed what he did do, and manslaughter is the obvious charge for prosecution.


Lol, so if a defendant remains silent it means he must have done it intentionally. You are pretty far out in looney land there with your legal theories.

NFCU has monitors at the drive thru lanes.


Cameras.

The Hollywood PNC Bank does have a camera at its drive through lanes, and I believe it has two (2) cameras for its drive through lanes, with one camera inside the building pointing outward and another camera outside over the drive through area.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




You keep framing it like this was an intentional act. Yogi walked in the street when he shouldn't have and got run over. It's really not complicated.


There are many things between innocent and "intentional" as like the driver being reckless or impaired or negligent.

Plus whatever the lawnmower man did is not an excuse for what the Police Officer did, and that is a simple but real complication.

Another thing that I want to point out is that any claim that Officer Goldston did not see the lawnmower man is simply and factually not true, because officer Goldston never said any such thing.

We could ask if he saw Mr Baird 100 feet before striking him? or did he see the pedestrian just ten (10) feet away? or did he see the man after the State Police vehicle hit the man? or did he only see Yogi only after his dead body was spread out on the roadway? because the cop that killed Yogi said no such thing.

So the claim that officer Goldston "did not see" our lawnmower man is not true, and it is in fact a lie.

That claim is not a piece of evidence as it is not a piece of testimony as it is a totally baseless claim with not an ounce of validity.

:coffee:

Cameras.

The Hollywood PNC Bank does have a camera at its drive through lanes, and I believe it has two (2) cameras for its drive through lanes, with one camera inside the building pointing outward and another camera outside over the drive through area.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




There are many things between innocent and "intentional" as like the driver being reckless or impaired or negligent.

Plus whatever the lawnmower man did is not an excuse for what the Police Officer did, and that is a simple but real complication.

Another thing that I want to point out is that any claim that Officer Goldston did not see the lawnmower man is simply and factually not true, because officer Goldston never said any such thing.

We could ask if he saw Mr Baird 100 feet before striking him? or did he see the pedestrian just ten (10) feet away? or did he see the man after the State Police vehicle hit the man? or did he only see Yogi only after his dead body was spread out on the roadway? because the cop that killed Yogi said no such thing.

So the claim that officer Goldston "did not see" our lawnmower man is not true, and it is in fact a lie.

That claim is not a piece of evidence as it is not a piece of testimony as it is a totally baseless claim with not an ounce of validity.

:coffee:



Give it up Jimmy, investigator is another on a very long list of things that you are not good at.

Give it up Jimmy, investigator is another on a very long list of things that you are not good at.

It is obvious Jimmy spends too much time on CSI-type shows. Of course every evil killing is proven with DNA and unexpected videos in an hour or less. What the hell is wrong with Maryland, anyway? Harmon would have solved this months ago.

Another thing that I want to point out is that any claim that Officer Goldston did not see the lawnmower man is simply and factually not true, because officer Goldston never said any such thing.

Of course he did.

This is officer Goldstons written statement the night of the accident (this is my transcription of his handwritten statement, so no quibbling about individual words or punctuation):


On 1/19/10 at 1856 hours I was off duty travelling S/B Mervell Dean Rd h/o Beck Rd. in unmarked MSP unit 434. This area of the roadway is dark with no street lights. Just north of Beck Rd. I struck a pedestrian that was in the roadway with a Push mower. I did not see the subject in the roadway until impact. I immediately slowed my vehicle down at Beck road, exited and checked the subject that I struck. At the same time, I made contact with another operator of a vehicle that was a short distance behind me. It was determined that the subject was deceased and I immediately notified MSP Leonardtown via cell Phone.


You really need to learn how to read these kinds of records before you make the kind of outlandish accusations you are throwing around here.

Of course he did.

This is officer Goldstons written statement the night of the accident (this is my transcription of his handwritten statement, so no quibbling about individual words or punctuation):


On 1/19/10 at 1856 hours I was off duty travelling S/B Mervell Dean Rd h/o Beck Rd. in unmarked MSP unit 434. This area of the roadway is dark with no street lights. Just north of Beck Rd. I struck a pedestrian that was in the roadway with a Push mower. I did not see the subject in the roadway until impact. I immediately slowed my vehicle down at Beck road, exited and checked the subject that I struck. At the same time, I made contact with another operator of a vehicle that was a short distance behind me. It was determined that the subject was deceased and I immediately notified MSP Leonardtown via cell Phone.


You really need to learn how to read these kinds of records before you make the kind of outlandish accusations you are throwing around here.


Okay, it is true, and I admit that you got me on that one.

Of course him saying that it was "dark" and him specifically saying that there was "no street light" means that he lied on that report, because we know that the area is very well lighted including the street light and another bright light from the Adult Daycare building across the road from the point of contact.

So you are correct that he said that he did not see the lawnmower man, but since he lied about the lighting then that discredits everything else he claimed.

:whistle:

Of course him saying that it was "dark" and him specifically saying that there was "no street light" means that he lied on that report, because we know that the area is very well lighted including the street light and another bright light from the Adult Daycare building across the road from the point of contact.

It matches the statements of the other witnesses to the accident. Short of you being an eyewitness, I dont think what you 'know' is terribly relevant.

It matches the statements of the other witnesses to the accident. Short of you being an eyewitness, I dont think what you 'know' is terribly relevant.


Honestly the witness saying it was dark there and could not see a man on the road or near the road is just rubbish.

My own opinion is that when the police wrongfully kill a person then they will plant a gun onto the victim so to make the victim into a criminal, and my guess is that the police manufactured the witness for Officer Goldston too.

And your claim that anyone has got to be an eyewitness is truly not correct, because I like many other people who grew up in Hollywood and we know that the street light is there and has been there for countless years and years and years, and the Adult Day care Center on the opposite side of that accident scene use to be the old Hollywood Elementary school, so the lighting at that location is a very long term and permanent fixture.

It would be different if he blamed some poor visibility because of a storm or strong wind or rain or power outage but there was none of that.

The Police Officer had a long quarter of a mile of clear roadway with rather bright lighting as he ran over top of the lawnmower man.

The cop saying otherwise or any witness(es) saying otherwise is just not true.

But I do agree that what I know is not relevant to the Police or to the State's Attorney, but neither is the truth or the justice nor the life of Mr Baird relevant to them either.

:whistle:

:yawn:

Honestly the witness saying it was dark there and could not see a man on the road or near the road is just rubbish.

My own opinion is that when the police wrongfully kill a person then they will plant a gun onto the victim so to make the victim into a criminal, and my guess is that the police manufactured the witness for Officer Goldston too.

And your claim that anyone has got to be an eyewitness is truly not correct, because I like many other people who grew up in Hollywood and we know that the street light is there and has been there for countless years and years and years, and the Adult Day care Center on the opposite side of that accident scene use to be the old Hollywood Elementary school, so the lighting at that location is a very long term and permanent fixture.

It would be different if he blamed some poor visibility because of a storm or strong wind or rain or power outage but there was none of that.

The Police Officer had a long quarter of a mile of clear roadway with rather bright lighting as he ran over top of the lawnmower man.

The cop saying otherwise or any witness(es) saying otherwise is just not true.

But I do agree that what I know is not relevant to the Police or to the State's Attorney, but neither is the truth or the justice nor the life of Mr Baird relevant to them either.

:whistle:

All I have to say if you cannot stop within what your headlights are showing you is you are either driving too fast or not paying attention. I don't give a damn what is in the road, or what lane, you should be able to avoid or stop if it is worth avoiding. The cop screwed up.

Honestly the witness saying it was dark there and could not see a man on the road or near the road is just rubbish.


I see, they are all lying and you are right. :poorbaby:

I see, they are all lying and you are right. :poorbaby:


You might make fun of this, but you are stooping low.

The cop said there was no street light when there still is that same street light at that same location - so the cop did lie.

This has nothing to do with me being right, and I had just admitted in a previous posting that I had made a mistake in this myself.

I refer you back to the link on posting #1 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man.html) because I agree with that person that I find many people around here who do not believe the claim that Yogi the lawnmower man was at fault for what the State Police officer did. And the link in Posting #43 (http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/247492-lawn-mower-man-5.html#post4832864), because those people are intent enough to give their real name into the public Newspaper and decry the injustice based on those same lies of blaming the dead man for what the cop did.

I know some people do claim that it is police-haters as if some people just hate the police, but surely are we to love or to like the Police who run down a beloved member of our community and then the other Police cover it up and the State's Attorney pretend that the lies are the truth? hell no.

:whistle:

All I have to say if you cannot stop within what your headlights are showing you is you are either driving too fast or not paying attention. I don't give a damn what is in the road, or what lane, you should be able to avoid or stop if it is worth avoiding. The cop screwed up.


That really is very correct, in that even if that road had been pitch dark of night, and no street light and no light from across the road as there was, so that the road was pitch black dark, then the headlights alone on the Police vehicle was enough for any healthy person driving to see the road ahead and to act to avoid hitting the object in the road.

I have had deer jump out in front of me and I have just barely missed hitting the animals, but the lawnmower man certainly did not and could not jump out in front of anyone.

The cop had headlights and near a quarter mile of roadway visibility and he fails to prevent the accident - which I say equals a charge of manslaughter, or worse.

Instead they let the killer go and blame the victim simply because the police can not face up to their own wrongs, and the police have a misguided and immoral type of loyalty to each other with a less regard for our community.

:poke:

You might make fun of this, but you are stooping low.

I am not making fun of the accident. I am making fun of you because I think you are pretty far out to lunch.

I am not making fun of the accident. I am making fun of you because I think you are pretty far out to lunch.

That. :coffee:

Give it up Jimmy, investigator is another on a very long list of things that you are not good at.


I can not decipher whatever you mean by "give it up" so I do confess that I do know that there is no hope or expectation of that criminal cop being prosecuted - certainly not, so if that is whatever you mean by "give it up" then yes I give up that.

And truly I am not seeking any new evidence against that killer cop because there is already enough evidence for charges of manslaughter as there was way back when the killing first took place, and that is still true today.

The only thing that I can do which is the same as the many other people regarding this tragedy who have spoken out or have written to the Newspapers is to keep trying to expose the depravity and the disloyalty of our Police and of our State's Attorney office, and never accept their lies.

One thing that decent people can do is to reject and deny the wrong-doing and the lies of those who perpetrate such things, and that is never to be given up.

:patriot:

Well it happened and you folks want to blame the cop?


It is not a matter of "WANTING" to blame the cop - no, it is that it was the cop who ran over a pedestrian without justification.

It appears that the presentation is that the cop did nothing wrong since everything the cop did is being blamed onto the dead man who the cop ran over.

Did that cop do nothing wrong? did that cop make no mistake? can we honestly blame the dead victim for what the unharmed police officer did?

People blame that cop for what that cop did do, which was to senselessly run over a beloved member of our community without justification.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




... maybe like Al Sharpton with the Trayvon Austin case you can get justice for the lawnmower man.


I would be happy to do that myself, but more so is that we need some one of the stature of Reverend Al Sharpton which we do not have standing up for justice here in our St Mary's County.

The bigger problem is that here we have far too many white sheep as citizens who are too timid and too sold out to the establishment for any such protest for such a righteous cause as the killing of our lawnmower man.

The Reverend Al Sharpton and other civil rights' leaders went to Florida in the Trayvon Martin case because the family along with many members of that community were moral enough to see the horrible wrong and they tried to do some thing about the injustice and they invited Reverend Sharpton into their community.

Here in our SMC the people are far too timid to tell our Police Department and our State's Attorney about their cowardly inaction in the case of Officer Goldston killing our lawnmower man.

Ours is a sad reality, and here we shall live within our own making.

:barf:

Ours is a sad reality, and here we shall live within our own making.


Does that mean yr done?

You might make fun of this, but you are stooping low.

I know some people do claim that it is police-haters as if some people just hate the police, but surely are we to love or to like the Police who run down a beloved member of our community and then the other Police cover it up and the State's Attorney pretend that the lies are the truth? hell no.


That thing about the Police (including Courts and State's Attorney office) giving out their claim that they are different because there are "Police-haters" which makes so the Police need (need) to protect themselves from the haters - does not hold up under scrutiny.

As in if the Police prosecute the officer Goldston then that will open a vulnerability for the police-haters to capitalize onto.

The Police can dish it out, but the Police can not take their own medicine.

Put that under scrutiny and every person whoever gets arrested or commits a crime then they along with their friends and family has to take the heat from the public and very often from a public backlash, which means every common person in the entire USA (the entire world really) has got to take the heat which their local police dish out.
So is it that the Police can not take their own heat because of the public backlash of the common folk?

But in fact there have been big groups who have been prosecuted, as like President Nixon bit the dust, and the Catholic Church has its own haters and yet they came clean about their wrong doings, and even celebrities like Paris Hilton and Martha Stewart faced up to the police and to their prosecution, but here again as in the killing of our lawnmower man the Police can not take their own medicine, and the Police are covering up their own wrong as if the police are above the law since the police-haters are somehow out there and out to get the police.

Of course there is that thing about responsibility and liability, in that the police can be sued for their wrong doing and it can be a lot of money, but that is true for everyone, as in Doctors have to pay for any doctoring done wrong, and every person driving a car is to have our own liability insurance in case any of us run over a lawnmower man, so the Police who do wrong are indeed to pay damages or penalties too, as in the cop who ran down Mr Baird did not even chip in for his funeral expense because the cop is claiming that Yogi (Mr Baird (http://countytimes.somd.com/special/2011/yogi/article-2011-01-27.html)) is the one at fault for what the cop did, as in Yogi is the reason that the cop ran over top of him, so maybe the family (or the estate) of Yogi needs to pay for the damage done to that police vehicle? since it is claimed that the victim is the one who did it to the police.

Of course Mr Baird, 88, actually had a military funeral service provided by the VA because he had been an honorably discharged member of the National Guard.

:patriot: