Death of Jaahnavi Kandula, 23, from India, ignited outrage after fellow officer was recorded making ‘appalling’ remarks about case

Prosecutors in Washington state said on Wednesday they will not file felony charges against a Seattle police officer who struck and killed a graduate student from India while responding to an overdose call – a case that attracted widespread attention after another officer was recorded making callous remarks about it.

Officer Kevin Dave was driving 74mph (119km/h) on a street with a 25mph (40km/h) speed limit in a police SUV before he hit 23-year-old Jaahnavi Kandula in a crosswalk on 23 January 2023.

In a memo to the Seattle police department on Wednesday, the King county prosecutor’s office noted that Dave had on his emergency lights, that other pedestrians reported hearing his siren, and that Kandula appeared to try to run across the intersection after seeing his vehicle approaching. She might also have been wearing wireless earbuds that could have diminished her hearing, they noted.

For those reasons, a felony charge of vehicular homicide was not warranted. “There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Dave was consciously disregarding safety,” the memo said.

  • BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    182
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Something you hear a lot from EMTs is that they take a lot of care not to make a medical emergency worse by adding to the number of victims. “Scene safety” is a big thing, the logic being that if you try to help someone in an unsafe way, you may end up just adding to the problem.

    You’d think the same would apply to cops? Doing 75 in a 25 seems like the same kind of thing, especially in an area with pedestrians around. Doing 50 over to get to someone that needs help and hitting someone along the way isn’t actually helping.

    Oh, also:

    Kandula’s death ignited outrage, especially after a recording from another officer’s body-worn camera surfaced last September, in which that officer laughed and suggested that Kandula’s life had “limited value” and the city should “just write a check”.

    Jesus Christ, fuck the police.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      89
      ·
      10 months ago

      That second cop is the vice president of the Seattle police union. The person he was talking to on the phone when he minimized the death and talked about how worthless she was? The president of the police union.

      • Tujio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Seattle PD is pretty fucking bad.

        Seattle Police Officer’s Guild is even worse.

        The leadership at SPOG is about as bad a it gets in big cities. Look at anything that Mike Solan has done in his career, but especially look into his words and actions around the BLM riots and CHOP. It’s fucking embarrassing that a city of our caliber has a police force of their caliber.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Seattle was also under an injunction from the Department of Justice for repeated rights violations as was Portland Police Bureau. It seems the police in many leftist cities are exceptionally heinous and I’m sure both of these departments are full of Proud Boys and their ilk.

          • Bibliotectress@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            It seems the police in many leftist cities are exceptionally heinous and I’m sure both of these departments are full of Proud Boys and their ilk.

            You’re right. I’m from Chicago and the cops there are pretty bad. New York is bad, too. Maybe it’s their safe space? Or it’s cops everywhere. I’m not really sure.

    • bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’ve seen this in the way that police drive in my city compared to other emergency responders.

      About two years ago, there was an incident in a town south of me that required the strategic response unit or whatever term they are calling themselves. On my way home from work I see some huge police vehicles start coming down the highway behind me, so I pull over. But this is an 8-lane highway in town, at an intersection that is red so there isn’t a lot of room for everyone to pull over.

      Usually when this happens (this is the main highway/road through town, and the ambulances need to use it all the time) the emergency vehicle will slowly weave its way through traffic, as people who couldn’t pull over the the side of the road made space however they could. If that means driving on the wrong side of the road for 100 metres, they will.

      These ‘specially trained’ police officers however, came to a complete stop multiple times behind vehicles, then starting blaring their horns to make the vehicles move even when there wasn’t really a spot they could move to. These cops refused to drive in any other lane other than the left most lane.

      The next day an article came out, saying that the incident was resolved without this special unit because they didn’t get there in time.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      10 months ago

      The difference is that EMTs mission is to help people. Cops aren’t there to help anyone. They are there to keep poor people in order

  • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Will not face charges in a court of law.

    The law exists to avoid mob rule. When the law completely abandons any pretense of justice, that’s when mobs become emboldened by necessity.

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wish we could get some mobs organized up here. If one tenth of the stuff Fox said about Seattle protests was true we might see some actual change.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In a memo to the Seattle police department on Wednesday, the King county prosecutor’s office noted that Dave had on his emergency lights, that other pedestrians reported hearing his siren, and that Kandula appeared to try to run across the intersection after seeing his vehicle approaching. She might also have been wearing wireless earbuds that could have diminished her hearing

    It’s possible this was her fault, but there are an awful lot of caveats in there. This looks like a kitchen sink of possible excuses. But also, we should have definitive answers to those questions before deciding not to prosecute, shouldn’t we?

    “He might not have been at fault.”

    “Oh! Case closed.”

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 months ago

      With them saying she tried to run across the road, she likely saw him coming but didn’t realize he was driving 3x the speed limit and would cover a ton of ground in a split second. Prosecutors refusing to charge this as vehicular homicide is a bullshit smokescreen as they should be able to charge him with manslaughter.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The one that makes it sound like the kitchen sink is the headphones, the others pretty clearly paint it as her carelessness, if true. It sounds like she wasn’t really paying attention or looking while crossing the road, saw the car and ran. Meanwhile the officer could have also seen her and tried to avoid, unfortunately running into each other, like two people walking towards each other moving the same way to try and avoid.

      The article says “appeared” but I think that’s less of an uncertainty and more the technical language employed, like how a newspaper calls someone “an alleged criminal”. The video itself may be far more clear cut - without seeing that I’d reserve judgement.

      74mph in a 25mph sounds excessive, though, especially for a police officer responding to what should be primarily a medical emergency.

      • Flamingflowerz@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Your answer reads the most reasonably here IMO. I have crossed a road at a run to beat an approaching car before, and had I been struck it definitely would’ve been my fault for not practicing proper safety. Thankfully, that didn’t happen. A crappy situation all around, though, and I wish that other cop who made those dumb remarks would face some consequences for being so callous.

        • Boddhisatva@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          10 months ago

          I have crossed a road at a run to beat an approaching car before, and had I been struck it definitely would’ve been my fault for not practicing proper safety.

          I’m with you on this, however, the speed of the cop is an issue. At three times the speed limit, an approaching car would reach you much faster than you would expect it too. This girl may have glanced, seen the cop in the distance, and never realized how fast he was going. Frankly, if an emergency responder if taking an action this far outside the norm, they should also be taking great care because innocent bystanders cannot be expected to anticipate the responders actions.

      • Rhaedas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Police are trained to drive at faster speeds for obvious reasons, but even they need to limit such higher speeds to the same constraint of reaction and vehicle performance times. I’ll be positive and give the benefit of the doubt that he did try to avoid hitting her once he saw her (if he saw her at all), but I can’t imagine anyone being able to react nor slow or swerve in such a setting if it was like most 25 mph zones I know of. People speed through our 25 mph subdivision at 35-40 mph and I’m just waiting for the day someone gets clipped.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I absolutely reserve judgment. It sounds like a brief investigation to come to the conclusion they wanted, but that doesn’t mean that’s the case. It could be just a tragic accident.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It’s obviously an accident. The issue is it was a negligent accident. 75 in a 25 is an insane speed. It’s his job to get to the scene quickly, it’s not his job to endanger the public while doing so.

          The fucking military takes more care around foreigners than American cops do around Americans. I’m sick of them getting away with this bullshit. And I’m sick of no one doing any about the intentionally destructive training they get.

    • cooljacob204@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      But also, we should have definitive answers to those questions before deciding not to prosecute, shouldn’t we?

      Actually not really. There has to be clear evidence of a crime. A bunch of open questions works against prosecuting the case. Remember this would probably eventually end up in a jury trail and you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

      75 in a 25 is insane and negligent homicide in my opinion but it gets tricky since it was a cop with lights and sirens on.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        If this was about to go to trial I agree. But this is about choosing to end the investigation while leaving questions unanswered. We can’t possibly say whether she was wearing earbuds? Were any foumd at the scene? Were they paired to her phone?

        Maybe they’ve answered those questions and they just aren’t in the article, but as presented this sounds more like hopeful speculation that maybe she was partly to blame.

        Agreed that a cop with lights and sirens on headed to a scene may well not be culpable responding to an urgent situation. I want to be clear that I’m not judging the cop. I just wantal a real investigation done. Could be the cop didn’t do anything wrong by procedure. But it just feels like they didn’t want to find anything wrong, so they did the minimum, invented excuses, and closed the case.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Striking a pedestrian is evidence of a crime, no matter what. A trial is when the evidence is examined to see if the striker was at fault.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      “He might not have been at fault.”

      “Oh! Case closed.”

      I hate the lack of police accountability as much as anyone, but this is literally how our legal system is supposed to work in order to prevent wrongful convictions. That’s what the presumption of innocence for defendants and the requirement for prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are all about.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        This wasn’t in a court. This was the DA saying they would not open a case. Innocent until proven guilty applies to court of law, where they look at the evidence to decide if you are guilty.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The goal of a DA is to bring cases to court and get convictions. They’re not going to bring a case where they know in advance that the defense has a winning argument. The only burden of the defense is to create reasonable doubt, so if the DA isn’t certain the potential defendant is criminally liable, it’s reasonable for them to predict any halfway competent defense attorney can create doubt in the minds of jurors. Bringing a case in that scenario would just be grandstanding.

          What we really need is to change the law so that the way the cop was driving is a crime in itself unless they’re responding to a live-threatening emergency.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Lol we all know anyone else in this situation gets charged. The DA didn’t charge this shit bag because he’s a cop.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Absolutely not. Trials, the process used to determine guilt, shouldn’t be thrown out just because someone “might” be innocent. Everyone might be innocent. That’s why we investigate and try these cases.

        • bbuez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not to be pedantic but to add, everyone is innocent until otherwise proven, which requires amicable evidence that a crime was committed. At least how this sounds imo its even worse than a “qualified immunity” ruling since it seems as though the killing itself is being disregarded… much like these cops’ sentiment. That is absurd if our courts cant judge at least something wrong was done and make a shitty excuse for it even

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        It feels like there should be an actual investigation that answers these unknowns. Maybe there has been and this isn’t a great article. It certainly isn’t my intent to necessarily prosecute the cop, but based on the information in this article it leaves me feeling like the investigation was abbreviated.

        That doesn’t mean I’m convinced any investigation must necessarily lead to prosecution. I’d just like to know that these questions were answered. Frankly with his lights and siren on and on the way to an urgent call, it seems very likely the guy is not responsible. But that doesn’t mean I want to half-ass the investigation. That’s all. I appreciate and agree with your perspective.

  • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    So was she or was she not wearing headphones? That’s something that should have been trivial to verify if true. Since it’s a maybe I’m assuming she wasn’t.

    Also, why the fuck does a cop need to do 50mph over the limit for an overdose victim? Are we pretending he would have done anything helpful once there?

    Fuck officer Kevin Dave.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      She got hit at 74mph. If you told me her ears had detached and couldn’t be found, I wouldn’t be surprised.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, pretty much. The poor girl probably resembled hamburger meat.

        And some people have been quick to jump on the “well why did she run across the street” talking point, but humans are really really bad at judging speed when something is coming directly at us.

        Our brains perceive depth by measuring the difference between our two eyes. But when your eyes are only a few inches apart and the object is three hundred yards away, it basically looks stationary until it’s right on top of you. There hasn’t been any evolutionary advantage to being able to accurately gauge speeds from several hundred yards away, because for the vast majority of human history nothing existed that would chase you down that fast. Even when driving, you’re rarely looking directly at oncoming traffic; You’re usually off to the side slightly, so you can more accurately judge the speed of oncoming traffic by comparing it to its surroundings.

        If she assumed it was going at a more reasonable speed, and couldn’t tell otherwise because it was heading right for her and depth perception failed her, then she literally wouldn’t realize her mistake until the car was right on top of her.

        At the listed 74 MPH, a car would close a 300 yard gap in less than 9 seconds. That’s about how long it’d take someone to see it, go “it’s not going that fast! The speed limit is only 20 MPH and they’re maybe doing 40? I can make it,” and run out in front of it. At an average walking pace, it takes about ten seconds to cross a three lane road, so she’d probably end up riiiiiight in front of a car if it’s traveling way faster than she anticipated.

    • spirinolas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Someone was overdosing. If he was too slow he would loose his chance to fear for his safety and shoot him dead.

      • Vanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        Exactly. There is zero chance that this guy was speeding (3x limit, in 25 zone!) just to help at an overdose emergency. We can only imagine why he was so motivated. (“Car loud, go fast?! People notice, feel special! Gun fun, maybe use!?”)

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think they carry that drug that can save people from an overdose. Otherwise, really, why would he be in a hurry. An OD is just lots of paperwork. If you told me he was speeding away… I would believe it.

  • jmiller@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’d say anyone choosing to drive 74mph in a 25mph zone can be said to have disregarded safety. And if you haven’t realized you are going 74mph in a 25mph zone, you shouldn’t have a license, let alone be an officer.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Also, this was a police officer responding to an overdose call, I doubt he was going to administer medical assistance.

      However it should be said that a 25mph road should really be designed as a 25mph road, with suitable traffic calming measures. Far too many low speed limit roads are big and wide open, practically encouraging people to speed.

      • RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        However it should be said that a 25mph road should really be designed as a 25mph road, with suitable traffic calming measures. Far too many low speed limit roads are big and wide open, practically encouraging people to speed.

        Sorry, but this is nonsensical. The wide road did not make that cop drive 75 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. That officer was responsible for his own actions, and would have found a way to drive at an unsafe speed regardless of how the road was designed.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Hypothetically he would have been forced to go too slow to easily murder anyone with his car. He is a murderer, but traffic engineering works.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          The officer is responsible for his own actions, but responsibility isn’t divied out into neat percentages.

          The officer is 100% responsible for their actions and their gross excess speed. They are a highly trained driver, and they should know better. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other factors of responsibility: eg, the road being poorly designed for 25mph, while allowing 75mph as a practicable speed; the girl crossing the road without paying attention; the general attitude of police as a profession chasing drug calls as a source of point scoring, rather than serving the public good.

          In particular, it is not illegal to be high on drugs. The crimes are possession and intent to supply. Having drugs in your system is not a crime, and having drugs in your system does not legally imply a crime has been committed. It might be somewhat likely that you’ll find drugs with someone who has taken them, but that’s just probable cause for a search, and not something an officer should be racing towards.

          However, you should not be able to drive down a 25mph road at 75mph. It should feel wrong and sketchy well below that speed, and be completely impossible at that speed.

          A 25mph road should not be a wide open straight road. It should force drivers to slow down to manoeuvre around traffic calming measures.

  • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    “There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Dave was consciously disregarding safety,”

    so as long as i hit someone who has ear buds in while doing 75mph in a 25mph zone, i’m in the clear. way to victim blame. what a fucking joke.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    She might also have been wearing wireless earbuds that could have diminished her hearing, they noted.

    Might? Really, Might? She did or didn’t, and she was listening to something or didn’t. Might is just guessing and just randomly throwing out accusations. She might also have been robbing a bank and the police officer might also be a pedophile. What the hell is this?

    • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t see how it matters anyway, do deaf people deserve to die because they have diminished hearing?

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    10 months ago

    The last two jury duty cases I was called for had the district attorney making very sure all the jurors knew that “even if the person the crime was committed to didn’t want the charges pressed” and “if there’s only one person saying what happened actually happened, that’s all the evidence you need to know that it happened” while a non English speaking person sat in the defense side with a translator and a (I’m betting) court appointed attorney tried to defend them.

    Meanwhile police are mowing people down at felony reckless driving speeds and the district attorneys are “lol, not enough evidence”

    Get the fuck out of here with that cowardice.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    It can be both: the officer could have been operating within the bounds of his responsibility, the victim could have been in a state with diminished hearing, and the tragic accident could be just that; AND the other officer could be a monumental racist shitbag who hates people and needs to lose his job and address that racism.

    We can regret that this accident occured even as we hate the racist cop who disparaged the deceased and disrespected her as a person.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Over the last several years I’ve come to despise the police and consider them more of a menace to the general public than any criminal organization at this point. That’s really all I’ve got to say here, I feel like there’s not much more I can do other than vote for non-existent police reform policy.