Woman charged with death of CHP officer on meth

September 8, 2010

Kaylee Ann Weisenberg

The woman who hit and killed a CHP officer in June was charged with vehicular manslaughter after tests revealed she had a high level of methamphetamine in her system at the time of the accident. [Tribune]

Kaylee Ann Weisenberg, 22, was allegedly impaired, speeding and driving without a license when she hit California Highway Patrol officer Brett Oswald on June 22.

Weisenberg was driving a Toyota Corolla northbound on South River Road in Paso Robles. She turned a corner at high speed near Spanish Camp Road and lost control of her car.

Her car slammed into Oswald’s parked vehicle, pushing it forward to where it struck Oswald who was waiting with an abandoned vehicle for a tow truck.

On Tuesday, the District Attorney’s office charged Weisenberg with second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury, and driving with a suspended license. Weisenberg remains in County Jail with bail set at $250,000.


Loading...

23 Comments

  1. IMO says:

    5 Basics for Journalism: Who, What, WHEN, Where, Why.

    Officer Oswald lost his life at the hands of an irresponsible, selfish, adult crackhead who was on methamphetamines even though she has a child in her custody [which I hope will no longer be the case after this trial], however, not on June 22nd as written in the above article….! Me thinks that recognizing the correct date for this tragic loss of life is more important than squabbling over how a headline was written.

    As for the D.A.’s office in SLO, for the people whining that the office is inconsistent, no time like the present to change that… How about some of us stop by your job(s) so we can comment on how your doing? We’ll review your work performance, even if we aren’t educated in your field (assuming your field required higher education). Better yet, the judges you elect, judicial bodies and legislature are where you can forward your thoughts on changing the way the law works. If you don’t vote and don’t advocate for changes in laws, you don’t really have a lot to say except for being a Monday-morning-quarterback.

    (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
    • IMO says:

      From Penal Code (188)

      ‘Such malice may be express or implied. It is express whenthere is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take awaythe life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerableprovocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killingshow an abandoned and malignant heart.   When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentionaldoing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, noother mental state need be shown to establish the mental state ofmalice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to actwithin the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despitesuch awareness is included within the definition of malice.’
      *******
      Too bad the Defendant didn’t report to her other court appearance(s)…. she might have taken things more seriously had she stood before a Judge.  A life might not have been cut short.  She might have been taking care of her child instead of in the place she now finds herself.  Actions have consequences; the Defendant did not take the consequences such as losing her license, seriously. She had no regard for human life the day she killed Officer Oswald, or when she was using methamphetamine despite having a child to take care of… Where is the outrage over what the child of the defendant has probably had to witness in their life. The Defendant’s child still has a chance to grow up and be a responsible adult, unlike their mother. 

      (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  2. danika says:

    Okay, the headline did give me pause to wonder WHY the officer was on meth. CCN, someone needed more coffee this morning.

    I think the charges are excessive. Yes, I know the argument. She was a bad, bad, person and purposefuly took his life. But she didn’t. She hit his cruiser, which in turn hit him. It seems driving under the influence causing injury and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated are redundant. For those of you who feel she should get the book thrown at her…she apparently has.
    I feel for the family, friends, and community who holds this man in memory. A heartbreaking loss.

    Irony here: Officer Oswald was the lead officer in the motorcycle accident a few months ago that took the life of Brian Hull. Life is precious. Use everyday like it were your last…

    (-7) 17 Total Votes - 5 up - 12 down
    • BeenThereDoneThat says:

      I LOVE THIS ARGUEMENT OF YOURS! It was the car’s fault! Now I have heard it all. Unreal arguement. We have it all wrong. We need to prosecute the police car for it’s actions!

      (6) 12 Total Votes - 9 up - 3 down
      • Cindy says:

        danika didn’t say it was the cars fault. She is pointing out that Kaylee is accused of intentionally killing the officer. As ridiculous a charge as that is to begin with, Kaylee didn’t hit the officer, she hit his car. How can she possibly be charged with intentionally hitting Oswald? HOW?

        This young woman screwed up terribly, she is a reckless driver, irresponsible and those faults have resulted in the loss of a life. Acting in a reckless fashion that results in the “unintended” death of another human being is man slaughter. Man slaughter can carry a 6+ year prison sentence and is a very serious charge. This is what Kaylee is guilty of IMO.

        Murder? Don’t think so. Shae is such an incompetent DA. He shy’s away from the big fish, turns his head from the serious criminals that intentionally do harm to hundreds of citizens but throws the book and trumps up charges on a young girl of scant means and dubious background. She’s easy. Way to go Shae, you idiot.

        (1) 13 Total Votes - 7 up - 6 down
        • BeenThereDoneThat says:

          You ask HOW?????? Simple. Her actions caused the car to be pushed into him. Had she not hit his car, had she not been high, had she not been drunk, had she not been speeding, then her CAR would never have hit HIS car and probably never would have hit HIM.

          If this was a case of you and me coming around a blind corner minus all the bad judgement mentioned, it would have been a TRUE accident, handle as such, and no time (jail) required. I am sorry but I am for victums rights, not foolish peoples rights.

          (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
          • easymoney says:

            Bingo… Victims rights not perps rights.
            No one made her do the idiocy she did to take anothers life wastefully…

            (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
          • Cindy says:

            BTDT, you’re missing the entire point here. Everything you say is true but does any of it equate to the fact that she is now accused of “intentionally” hitting the officer in an attempt to kill him? MURDER 2 means that she did it intentionally, she didn’t plan it but she intentionally took his life, that is what she is now charged with! Give me a break, do you believe that she saw the officer and decided that she was going to hit his car and make it plow into him and kill him? Do you believe a single iota of that scenario for a second?

            If we had a cut throat DA that was all business and went after all criminals with a vengeance and trumped up charges in an effort to get them convicted with the highest charge possible, then I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with this but we all know (especially you) that this isn’t the case. He has gone over the top and charged her because she is an easy target, while he has ignored and plead down crimes that have been far more severe and impacted far more individuals. He also goes in the opposite direction for people of means and prominence. Where is the real justice in this county?

            (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
            • BeenThereDoneThat says:

              Cindy. I didn’t miss a thing. Go to the net and look under “definition second degree murder in California.” Here it is

              “Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury, or acted with extreme recklessness.”

              That last part about extreme recklessness is what they are going for. They do and have done this ALL over California when drinking or drug driving results in death. I have seen MANY second degree charges NOT because of intent but because of RECKLESSNESS. Again I stand by my earlier statement. All seems pretty simple here to me.

              (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
              • Cindy says:

                BTDT, OK I looked it up and you’re correct. Murder 2 doesn’t mean that a person intentionally took a life but it comes very close. In this case the DA’s charge fit’s into this category : “implied malice as a subjective determination that the defendant in fact realized that his actions had “a high probability … [of] … resulting in death … [and yet acted] with a base antisocial motive and with a wanton disregard for human life.”

                The key word here is (the word) “subjective”. One has to determine that the “defendant in fact realized that his actions had “a high probability … [of] … resulting in death ” . It doesn’t matter if you or I would believe that our identical actions would have a high probability of resulting in death. In order for her to be guilty of this charge, she had to believe or know that her actions had a high probability of resulting in death.

                She screwed up, she is a reckless driver, she was UTI on meth and probably successfully drove in that condition many times. She was also speeding. She took a man’s life and now she is going to go to prison but no one is going to convince me that she believed that there was a “high probability” that she was going to kill someone. If she believed that, she wouldn’t have drove in that condition. No one ever thinks that it is going to happen to them. Remember that she is only 22 years old. That is my opinion. I would not find her guilty of murder2 at this point. They would have to produce some damn good evidence. Maybe they will, we will see.

                (-1) 5 Total Votes - 2 up - 3 down
        • Sherlock says:

          Hey Cindy, you are ROT …….Right on Target!

          (-1) 5 Total Votes - 2 up - 3 down
    • Cindy says:

      I took pause for a moment when you mentioned that last paragraph. Ironic indeed. I won’t ask the next obvious question but I will go and look back at the coverage of the Oswald service. I’m not superstitious that I know of , just curious.

      Yes, the headline is a “faux pas”, she has to do all the investigations herself and write the stories. She also has to follow up all the leads and tips people leave her. Give her a break, I’ve seen worse headlines at the Tribune and they have lot’s of staff.

      (-2) 4 Total Votes - 1 up - 3 down
    • IMO says:

      I fail to see any logic in the statement(s) made by user Danika. According to that logic, because there was a vehicle “cruiser” that hit the officer, that somehow lessens the fact that the Defendant caused the “cruiser” to hit the officer? Based on your logic, if someone fires a gun at someone, it’s the bullet that is responsible, not the person pulling the trigger.

      Why are you commenting on “irony” where this case is concerned? Defendant Weisenberg obviously lived everyday like it was her last.

      (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
      • Cindy says:

        To IMO, I follow danika’s logic perfectly. Common sense alone would indicate that K.W. couldn’t have possibly intentionally hit the officer since he was not in his vehicle and it was the vehicle that she hit. That’s all that I believe she was saying and I agree.
        This is a case of reckless driving, not murder. You can play around with semantics all you want but I will be very surprised if a jury convicts her of murder2. I suspect that Shae knows this as well and he has increased the charge to murder in an effort to cause the jury to find her guilty of the next most serious lesser charge that he can drop on her. I have faith in juries, especially in a case like this one. They will hear all the facts and they will figure it out, they take their duties very seriously and won’t find her guilty of something that they don’t believe is true. If she was UTI on meth and it was active in her system and she was speeding then she is guilty of manslaughter with some enhancements.
        By the way, I also have to question if she could have possibly been driving that road at 78mph. I don’t think so.

        You ask about my comment regarding “irony”. I was responding to a statement made by danika however my post is out of sequence. The “irony” discussion has nothing to do with this case, ignore it.

        (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  3. OsborneCox says:

    Really, CalCoastNews… Your often sloppy reporting is one thing, but nothing screams “We’re amateurs!” like a headline such as this.

    (-3) 11 Total Votes - 4 up - 7 down
  4. Turkeyjerky says:

    What an absolute dirtbag. There isn;t a good enough word to describe her but that is the closest.

    (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
  5. BeenThereDoneThat says:

    Let’s see. Second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury and driving with a suspended license.

    Priors…..FIVE separat traffic collisions, two of which involved injury to others and NINE additional serparate incidents of Vehicle Code citations. Also her estimated speed upon hitting the officer was 78mph in a 55mph zone. (Note all the above information taken from today’s Trib)

    Hell I’ve been driving for 30 years and have had three traffic tickets. This woman is only 22!!!
    I say don’t throw the book at her, beat the ever lovin hell out of her with it!! No sympathy here. She is a repeat malice offender with NO regard for others involved with her poor choises.

    (13) 19 Total Votes - 16 up - 3 down
  6. ososkid says:

    Some mistakes are uncorrectable. Finding yourself in the grip of addiction is correctable. Letting that addiction kill another person is not.

    She might have been incapacitated and not thinking clearly when she caused this accident but she abandonded that defense when she abandoned her judgement by using the drug.

    Im a bleeding heart liberal but I have my bounds of reason and this lady has crossed those bounds.

    I think she still gets a trial and an opportunity to fight the charge that she was high on meth at the time. I suppose there is the possibility of a lab mix up but if her defense fails to convince a jury than I think a very long sentence is very appropriate

    (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
    • Nancy says:

      I agree, NO EXCUSE. I should add that actually it isn’t about the addiction, I don’t believe that her addiction played a significant role in this incident. Addiction can be a difficult battle but this is about the fact that she chose to drive while impaired. She wasn’t addicted to that (driving), was she?

      (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
      • ososkid says:

        I dont see how you can say that addiction played no role here. She was a meth addict who got in her car (alegedly) and killed someone. I can understand how you might want to avoid giving her any kind of excuse, and I understand that, but addiction no matter how you look at it was a factor.

        (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  7. easymoney says:

    So sorry for the officer and his family. RIP
    Put the three time loser away for a very long time, maybe she’ll be cleaned out after she gets released…

    (9) 11 Total Votes - 10 up - 1 down
    • Bert says:

      Unfortunately she probably wont come out of prison clean. The rehabilitation part of the correctional system is a joke, in fact the quality and quantity of narcotics in prison is better/more prevalent than the streets. May the officers family have some closure and may he rest in peace. We must stop going after cannabis users and focus on the real shit like meth!

      (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
  8. NuttyBuddy says:

    That headline threw me! “The CHP officer was on METH? Oh, wait, it was the woman who hit him…”

    (14) 16 Total Votes - 15 up - 1 down

Comments are closed.