Threatening email prompts follow-up on Marysville teen's death
Received this charming message through the Seattle Crime Blog contact form last night:
The commenter does make one good point, though: we failed our readers by neglecting to follow up on this story to the extent that we should have. Toxicology reports did come back for Randy Privrasky in mid-May, and according to family members did confirm that he was NOT under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash. From a brief in the Everett Herald:
When it comes to sno67blurt@aol.com's complaints about "assumptions", he fails to see that the post in question was written before any toxicology reports, when there were still many questions surrounding the case. This site isn't an encyclopedia...it's a blog, where we provide our take on issues - the vast majority of them unresolved - that are currently making news.
This individual seems to think that because we had an opinion about an ongoing investigation that differs from his own, he can intimidate us into removing any record that such opinions ever existed. Well, his e-threats failed. SCB will not be take down anything we've published on the Privrasky incident so far (though we have updated the original post with a link to this one making note of the toxicology development).
The beauty of America is that everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how upsetting or outlandish they may be. We at Seattle Crime Blog have spent nearly a year calling local cases like we see 'em...and that's not going to change anytime soon.
You need to get your facts strait about the Randy Privrasky case. Update your website. The toxicology report came out and PROVED that he was sober during the incident. Before you make an assumption about what has happened know, your fucking facts. If you don't update or change your website's blog, I will find a way to find you and it will cost you. I'm not talking about money either. Go ahead and laugh at this message all you want. Be warned though. Change your fucking information or fucking pay. I will find you if you don't. When I do, I will NOT have second thoughts about anything I choose to do. Like your website says, "It's not always pretty." Change it. You will not be able to ever even type on the computer at the least when I get done with you if you don't change it. Get your shit together or pay.The author, who called himself "Bill Langer" (and claimed his e-mail address to be sno67blurt@aol.com), was referring to this post written back in March by The Apprentice. In it, my co-blogger contemplated that perhaps Privrasky, not the 25-year veteran deputy chasing him, was responsible for the accident that took his life...and that people blaming the officer would be singing a different tune if this teen's failure to obey the law had killed an innocent bystander. The Apprentice and I both still stand by that claim.
The commenter does make one good point, though: we failed our readers by neglecting to follow up on this story to the extent that we should have. Toxicology reports did come back for Randy Privrasky in mid-May, and according to family members did confirm that he was NOT under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash. From a brief in the Everett Herald:
A Marysville teenager who died after crashing his car during a police chase was not drinking the night of the accident, according to state lab results obtained by the boy's relatives. [...] Ron Privrasky, the boy's father, said he was given a copy of the Snohomish County medical examiner's autopsy report. Among those records were toxicology tests conducted by state experts that show the boy was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he died.The problem is that The Apprentice never claimed that Privrasky was drunk (only said it was a possibility, which based on all available information was accurate at the time), nor was the alcohol factor the main thrust of his argument.
When it comes to sno67blurt@aol.com's complaints about "assumptions", he fails to see that the post in question was written before any toxicology reports, when there were still many questions surrounding the case. This site isn't an encyclopedia...it's a blog, where we provide our take on issues - the vast majority of them unresolved - that are currently making news.
This individual seems to think that because we had an opinion about an ongoing investigation that differs from his own, he can intimidate us into removing any record that such opinions ever existed. Well, his e-threats failed. SCB will not be take down anything we've published on the Privrasky incident so far (though we have updated the original post with a link to this one making note of the toxicology development).
The beauty of America is that everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how upsetting or outlandish they may be. We at Seattle Crime Blog have spent nearly a year calling local cases like we see 'em...and that's not going to change anytime soon.
I disagree with the opinion you present in your article about Randy Privrasky. Randy was a close friend of mine, and was a bright young man with a bright future. Before the accident, Randy was heading to a friends house to hang out with her before later meeting up with me and the rest of my friends. Randy was not drunk, although beer was found near the site from the night before. Randy had just bought his first car, and was just promoted as a floor supervisor of the job me and him shared.
I realize this does not have any relevance to the accident, more of just a background on the information the media refuses to give out. However, in response to the blame being placed on the sherrif, I believe there is no wrong in this.
If we go back to facts, the accident occured on a stretch of road covered by ditches and trees on both sides. There was no shoulder, no pedestrians near by, and no immediate danger posed to anyone around the area. Randy was speeding, over the 40 mph allowed for a PIT maunevuer. However, the police officer found it necessary to spin Randy's car out. He also found it necessary to do so without an okay from his superior officer.
This caused Randy to lose control and spin off the road, going down the ditch, and hitting a tree quite violently which led to the loss of his life.
Now let us ask the question, was this necessary for a speeding ticket? From what the policeman knew Randy was avoiding a speeding ticket. Could the policeman not have recorded the license plate and researched the crime further at a later time?
The way I see it, the punishment did not fit the crime. The police department is protecting the sherrif because he is a veteran. The required video on all sherrif cars was supposedly "missing" and the sherrif, in a recent interview, refused to comment about the PIT mauneuver.
I refuse to play the "what if" game with your article. It is irrelevant to the situation to ask what if he hit a pedestrian. Not only do facts not support this, on an empty street, but "what if" stories can lead to many things, many of which have nothing to do with the accident.
From what we know, the PIT mauneuever was not needed. I know this will not be the only time a situation like this occurs, which is why PIT mauneuevers should be more strictly supervised. The rules for a PIT maunuever should be more strict also. It should only be allowed in situations were a larger crime is KNOWN.
We should no longer allow policeman to take an individuals life based on assumptions. This case could have been prevented if the policeman took down the license plate, and followed up on the case. Randy would have been ticketed, but still alive.
No longer should we as a society allow things like this to happen. No one should feel the pain the friends of this boy have felt, and an individuals life is more important than just a casualty in an accident.