The Lawn Mower Man.

[G1G4]

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.

 

[officeguy]

Even if Yogi was in violation of MD Code 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.

 

[officeguy]

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.

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

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" 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.

 

[Gilligan]

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?

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

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" 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.

 

[G1G4]

...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.

 

[Gilligan]

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

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

 

[PsyOps]

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.

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

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:

 

[Gilligan]

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?

 

[officeguy]

Well you started that when you make the horrific claim that Yogi was violating "Look up MD code 21-506" 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.

 

[czygvtwkr]

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.

 

[officeguy]

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.

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

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 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 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.

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 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.

 

[officeguy]

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.

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.

 

[mamatutu]

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.

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

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

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.



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

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

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.

 

[Hank]

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

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?

 

[mamatutu]

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.

I would rather before you make ME 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