Posted by NothingButTheTruth on May 9, 2007 at 1:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hiepler's last sentence presents the another question the public has a right to know: Just what "issues" does he claim have NOT been addressed in the investigation -- which was reviewed by the D.A.'s Office? The City has accepted fault/liability. Now the family and their (get rich dragging this on) attorneys want their pound of flesh. That is ALL that will be accomplished by dragging this case further through the mud. Sadly, the family doesn't realize their own lawyers are using them to fatten their wallets. At best, they will distort any minute discrepancies between what was said in the report vs. depositions. And what will that achieve? Nothing but more heart ache for ALL concerned; yes that includes the officers, not just the family.

Posted by luvpaint on May 9, 2007 at 1:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

THIS LADIES 2 KIDS ARE GOING TO HEAR THE FACTS TO THEIR MOTHERS DEATH.IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE MONEY THEY (SON&DAUGHTER)WOULD HAVE LEFT IT AT THAT.WHY NOT GIVE TESTIMONY OR DO THEY (COPS) HAVE
SOMETHING TO HIDE.COULD IT PROBABLEY HAVE BEEN
ACCIDENTAL MURDER.I THINK THEY (COPS)WERE VERY MUCH AT FAULT AND THEIR TRYING TO HIDE IT.I'M GLAD
THIS LADIES CHILDREN ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ON AFTER THIS. JUST MY OPINION.

Posted by george1234 on May 9, 2007 at 2:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LUVPAINT. As defined in the Webster Dictionary, Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

So it is most likely not an accidental murder, seeing that I highly doubt that the officers accidentally had malice aforethought (having the thought prior to commiting the act). This is an accident. NOTHIGNBUTTHETRUTH hit it right on the head. It was an accident and the lawyers for the family are just collecting more dough. Did you know that the longer the case drags on, the more the attorney gets paid. And the higher the settlement, the more money the attorney gets. I don't think that the family is wanting more money. I think they just want their mother back. Sadly that cannot occur. But the saddest part about it is that the attorneys are getting a super fat wallet over the whole deal. What is the point of the depo? The city is saying, "We messed up, let talk about damages (cash)". I understand that the family wants answers. I feel the answer is "Sorry, this was a horrible accident." THEIR IS NOTHING THAT CAN BRING THIS LADY BACK. IT IS A SAD SAD SITUATION. LETS NOT DRAG IT OUT.

Posted by americanicon on May 9, 2007 at 2:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do not understand it. If a civilian had run over the woman, depositions would be absolutely the right of the plaintiff's attorneys. Why is that that because they are police, their depositions had to be court ordered. Also a defense attorney has no standing in alleging there is "nothing new to be discovered." The DA did a criminal investigation and cleared them. This is a civil lawsuit, nothing to do with the DA's investigation. Amazing that the police are treated different that civilians in a civil matter and that a plaintiff has to get a court order to get the policemen's deposition under oath taken.

Posted by smithjc on May 9, 2007 at 4:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

one must keep in mind that these officers were required to "testify under oath" in the internal police and district attorney investigations of the incident. the department has the right to order them to respond truthfully in interviews, even in violation of their fifth amendment rights to remain silent, and to cooperate with the investigation of the other agency. there will be nothing "new" coming out of these depositions other than possibly minor variations in recollection caused by almost a year between occurrence and this interview. of course the plaintiff's attorney will jump on these variances as "evidence" of a coverup, because everyone should have perfect clarity of recall, no matter how long it has been.
they should just use the transcripts from the internal/d.a. investigations of be done with it. as the socialists are so fond of saying, "move on".

Posted by Ventura22 on May 9, 2007 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is pure BS!! What do they need to give a deposition for? The city already admitted responsibility and is paying for it. Come on. What a waste of court time. Just fire the morons who ran over the lady and move-on. Learn from it and don't let anymore patrols on the beach...

Posted by Chuck_U_Farley on May 9, 2007 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What makes any one think they won't just lie under oath?? Have you never seen a cop get "creative" with his "probable cause"???

Posted by castro4640 on May 9, 2007 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We are so easy to judge the city and the officers and the victim's family, but you really don't know unless you were there. That is the great thing about this country. We can speak our minds and state our opinions, yet the bottom line is this beautiful woman is gone and I'm sure these officers have had to endure long restless nights of what has happened. You have to put yourself in everyone's shoes and decide at what point do you start to move forward. No one in reality wins. It is a very unfortunate situation and my prayers go to all those involved.

Posted by blessedwpatience on May 9, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I said it before and I'll say it again "MONEY HUNGRY". This is stupid. It's been almost a year since this happened and they want to re-live this horrible tragedy all over again? LET THE WOMAN REST IN PEACE my goodness. It almost seems as if there hasn't been a month that has went by that we havent read another story about this incident. They don't want to hear the officers testify so they can be at ease, they want them to testify so they can try to find something else to sue about. Why? Because that's what sue happy people do. They already have money why do they need to keep this going? I bet that once they hear their testimonys we will read about them suing again.

Posted by mantiger808 on May 9, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's about being accountable for your actions...luvpaint talked about "accidental murder" The correct term that fits this crime,yes crime, is Vehicular Homicide, Section 192(c)(1) which states, "driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.
These officers had the radio playing music and the passenger had his feet up on the dashboard while driving on the beach during a sunny day when they should have assumed that there would be sunbathers on the sand. This was documented in their own accounts of what happened. I would describe that as grossly negligent.
And to george1234...duh, there is nothing that can bring any victim back to life or reverse the pain ro anguish that a crime victim experiences. does this mean that we don't pursue the culprits and hold them accountable. If the city is so sorry, then why don't they give the family what it wants. The city is also being represented by a private attorney and his pockets are getting fat at our expense as tax payers. We owe it to the family of this victim to assure them that every aspect of this incident has been addressed honesty, with empathy, and with their best interest in mind.

Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 9, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I dont understand why these officers still hold positions on the force, or city. If a Taxi driver killed someone on the job, accident or not, he would be fired, sued, and probably jailed, especially if he was driving incorrectly. The officers and city admit that the officers did not use proper precautions, so why are they special. Like I said a Taxi Driver would have lost much more. Even though we hold officers to a higher standard, when they dont live up to it nothing happens in forms of punishment. Another fishy thing is that the investigating officers are from the same department. Would you turn in your budy, co-worker for bad performance? Why should we expect the investigating officers to be of higher moral, when it is proven that officers like Polo have lied on the stand. If he has lied, kept his job, then why should I think that officers are truthful or honest. If he lied, that is what I expect from all the officers. Cover Up - maybe not! But Truth - nobody will ever know.

Posted by Jacksprat on May 9, 2007 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From what I understand the Oxnard Police are not suppose to be patroling the beach, unless they are looking for drugs or the such. This whole thing has stunk from the beginning with a great cover up by Oxnard police. You guy keep talking about Money hungry, have your mother killed by the police while she is sun bathing on the beach and then you can call Money Hungery. The real reason for the police to be on the beach in the first place has never come out in public. If you were not there and it was not your mother killed shut up.

Posted by BeaHappi on May 9, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Oxnard PD does patrol the beaches because there are no lifeguards on that part of the beach.

I do believe this was an accident and if it were me, I'd be fine giving the depositions. Maybe Officers Brisslinger and Polo are fine about it too. They may be receiving their orders from the PD and their attorneys.

Nothing is going to bring her back. Something good that could come out of this would be lifeguards posted at the beach. That is something to demand in a lawsuit.

The entire thing is just horrible...for everyone involved.

Posted by martin.gonzales on May 9, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with mantiger808...his posted opinion has mirrored my own.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on May 9, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both DA and OPD investigators give it their best. Their investigation begins when the information is fresh. Generally, these are two independent investigations, though some information is shared. The DA has an excellent staff of investigators who come from various law enforcement backgrounds ranging from the FBI to city cops. The DA does not go easy on officers if found to be in violation of their public trust.

In my opinion --- the sworn depositions will be one more tool in the plan to enrich some lawyers. Period. Because of the strategies used by the wordsmiths, I can almost guarantee that there will be further effort to discredit OPD, something that is not fair to the officers who risk their lives each and every day to protect us from scum.

Posted by blessedwpatience on May 9, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jmcgaw3046 I will NOT shut up. It's a comment board and I'm free to speak on whatever I want to. Firstof all my mother would never be killed on the beach because she doesn't go and she especially doesn't sunbathe. If my mom was to be killed and it was an ACCIDENT, I wouldn't keep draging it on not letting my mother R.I.P. I would sue for them to pay for her funeral expenses and that's it. I wouldn't need to sue for more than that. For what? What is that money going to do for me help me bring her back to life? Heck No! And I sure wouldn't want to hear details of how it happened almost a year later to open a wound up further that should be close to healing. Basically you don't know what any one of us would do because everyone reacts to things in different ways so why don't you take your own advice and sit down and be quiet.

Posted by JC on May 9, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

After reading the entire D.A. Accident report it is very clear that the officer's involved did nothing reckless or illegal.
Sadly Mrs. Connolly and the officers where in the wrong place at the wrong time; A tragic accident. I feel for the all the families and I think that Mrs. Connolly's family should be compensated as the City of Oxnard should have had a policy in force regarding beach patrol and proper training needed to be provided to officers.
It was sickening to read that one malicious people inserted themselves into the investigation and provided information completely contrary to every other witness and participant. A woman lost her life in a tragic accident, that is not the time to work through what ever personal issues you have with the Oxnard Police Department.
This is so very sad. Given that the officer's statements are in complete agreement with all but one witness, I don't see the need for them to be forced to give depositions. This will only prolong the pain and suffering. Compensate the family for their loss and move on.

Posted by smithjc on May 9, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

would someone please explain to me why they still scream to terminate the passenger officer? he was not in control of the vehicle and really has no responsibility at all in this matter. is it just because y'all (the ones calling for termination) are anti-cop and your agenda is to get rid of all police?

Posted by JC on May 9, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jmcgaw3046: You should really read the D.A.s accident report before you make inaccurate comments. It makes you look silly and reckless.

The Oxnard P.D Does in fact patrol the beach.

The reason the officers where there in the first place is CLEARLY spelled out in the D.A.'s report that you OBVIOUSLY didn't read.

Your abuse of English grammar and apparent inability to do basic research does not paint you or your opinions in the most favorable light. You really aren't qualified to tell anyone to "shut up". However, feel free to take your own advice.

Posted by Ventura22 on May 9, 2007 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They should patrol the beach with horses or ATV's Those are much safer around people and easier to spot things from.

Posted by FedUp on May 9, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JC is my new hero.
thank you for pointing out what so many others are thinking.

Posted by ThinkingForMySelf on May 9, 2007 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Has money been placed in the hands of the family from the City and how much? Is there an offer for more with an amount available. I ask because I'm hearing conflicting accounts of that, and whether the city admitted partial or full liability.

As for the police being deposed, what's the big deal. They get it out of the way, the city fights a little more, then a final settlement. One of the things that come up in figuring out a payment is what was the value of the person, and the potential future income reality for that person. That is why you find such disparities in the final settlements of those killed on 9.11.01 in New York. While some families got millions of dollars, others got thousands of dollars.

What was the value of this woman, can you tell me? Didn't she have young children. Should there be enough put aside to care for them. Are any of you parents. What happens to yours kids when you get killed by a careless motorist, providing you don't have a good life insurance policy.

It's very easy to say move on. I wished the police had moved on along time ago, doing the right thing giving the depositions.

How many times when a law is being passed that infringes on our rights, that you hear the right saying, "If you have nothing to hide, what is there to worry about". Police are great at saying this when they want a particular law, yet they fight having local, independent oversight boards on their conduct.

What are they worried about here. I'm sure what happen was an accident, careless yes, but an accident. Let the officers do what's right, let the family get their money. Let the lawyers get theirs and be done with it.

Posted by blessedwpatience on May 9, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Um ThinkingForMySelf I believe both her children are grown over 21. And yep I'm a parent and proud of it. If I get killed I wouldn't want my kids to get greedy that's if I were to be killed when they are over 21. I would rather them sue for my funeral expenses and move on. However if they are babies that may be a different story.

Posted by rebel123 on May 9, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it obscene to suggest that the family of this woman are seeking only monetary gratification from this. Perhaps they want to hear the truth from the mouths of those who caused her death.....and I frankly think that is very reasonable whether or not they file a civil suit later. And if it were my mother, I'd file a civil suit. Those who claim you can't put a price on life, well then what other means of "payment" do you suggest? Or should they just shrug it off and say "oh well"? Get real. Someone should be liable for this. And I am sick to death about hearing how devastated the officers are. As they should be! They, however, did not lose their mother/wife/daughter/sister. The entire "investigation" was cloaked in such secrecy and only done internally, not by an unbiased third party. The family deserves to have those responsible deposed under oath. There will very likely be a civil suit. As there should be. Clearly there was a good deal of negligence on the part of the officers as well as the department (which had no rules in place for driving on the beach). Let the family have their day in court. And until you have lost your loved one in a gruesome and unnecessary manner, reserve your judgment as to why the family is pressing this matter.

Posted by ThatsRubbish on May 9, 2007 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just can't believe what I am reading here and in previous articles. Yes this was a tragic ACCIDENT and I am sure that the Officers wil never forget this day. The family will also never forget this day. There is plenty of blame to go around and just dragging this on and on will never bring this poor lady back. One thing that I have not seen in any article or post is the fact that she was sunbathing down a berm that obstructed her from being seen. So and I'm going to hear about this one but isn't she to blame also? Had she been in a more visable place, had an umbrella or some type of device that would have alerted someone she would be alive today. So yes the driver did run her over but could have she prevented it also?

Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 10, 2007 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mantiger I agree with you. Give the family the full facts.....so they can REST in peace !!!
JmcGraw, I agree with your comment, BUT the Officers were called to the beach from a dispatch call of a swimmer in distress....... Although never trained to patrol or drive on the beach they were called to a call.

Bea Happi, I agree !!!!
Blessed, Perhaps she isn't resting in peace. Perhaps she would want the whole truth to be known????
Smithjc, I agree , I do not believe it was the Officers fault. It was the fault of the dept or city whomever should have trained them for driving on the beach. Heck with all the lumps in the sand I probably would have had my feet up too !!!
JC your right that they have patroled the beach and have the right to. But the public has the right to have beach patrolers whom have been trained. right?
Ventura22 I agree with the ATV patrols. Much safer !!!
Blessed, I understand your comment, but the value of my Mother has not decreased with her age......
Rebel123, I agree !!!
Beenthere, give me a break! Go to the beach and count how many people have umbrellas! Not many! Unless they have babies with them. This lady was NOT at fault in anyway! She had every right in the world to spend time at the beach and sunbathe..
I do feel for the Officers cause in my heart I feel it was a tragic accident. Not entirely thier fault. But the family is DUE the answers to the questions they ask. How can we put a price tag on our Mother????
Mr.Farley , arent you a public defender????

Posted by chopzilla on May 10, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AnnaWhaat----
TOUCHE!!!

Posted by Chuck_U_Farley on May 11, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AnaWhaat--
No sweetie. More criminal than public defender!
I believe that there are some good cops but I am also a realist. I believe that 5% of cops are good and righteous all of the time. I believe 5% would be criminals if they weren't cops and that the other 90% will bend which ever way the wind is blowing. Is that a pessimistic view of law enforcement?? Yeah, it probably is... but, I don't think I'm far from right...

Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 11, 2007 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chuck, Your probably right. But there is a public defender in Ventura with your name ! LOL

Posted by bucknasty on May 15, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A year ago I had a run in with these 2.believe me there is a whole lot more to this, way more that is why Oxnard is so willing to settle think about it. Wont say more cause they'll be busting my door down.

Posted by JC on May 16, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bucknasty: Based on your "run in" you think you have special insight into what happened that day on the beach? Did part of your "run in" include them giving you a crystal ball?

It's pretty clear that there are two basic groups here. Law abiding members of society who agree that it's sad event and that the police made a mistake, but were not criminally liable. The second group are people who are predisposed to disliking law enforcement officers because they've either had to answer to the law for prior misdeeds or have family members who have had to answer.

There is not one shred of evidence to support that these officers did anything criminal or grossly negligent. The only argument that is made is that "the police are corrupt". and still no evidence to support that.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 27, 2007 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JC, I agree its not the Officers , its the people who should have trained them for a job to do and they didn't get that training.