What would the charges be if Gray Adams shot an killed two police officers?

This is total BULL CRAP.

There's a big difference between a traffic crash and an intentional shooting of someone.

It is strange that no charges are laid in this case, as the guy who rear ends someone is surely careless and should be charged with "careless driving". However, the SAG vehicle driver is not completely innocent either. He is following too close.

However, even if no charges are laid, that does not mean that the guy who rear ended someone can completely wash his hands off the matter. This is because insurance compensation for damages such as wage losss, pains and sufferings, funeral expenses, etc., will be paid out and you know that insurance companies are not charities -- they will recoup their financial loss from the poor "at fault" driver.

The way it works is this: the insurance adjusters for each driver will decide among themselves which driver is at fault OR whether the fault is "shared" among all or some drivers, and pay out the damages according to some forumla set out by law or by the insurance industry.

Take this case as an example. If it happened in Ontario, it will be treated as a multi-car pile up and the guy who rear ended the SAG vehicle will be 100% at fault. The driver of the SAG vechicle (in the middle) will be 50% at fault, because he also rear ended the police cyclists by following too close. The police officers will be no fault at all. Therefore, the truck driver will have to pay for 100% of his own damage plus 50% of whatever damages he had caused in front of him whereas the SAG driver will be responsible for 50% of his own damage plus 50% of the damages of the police cyclists. The cyclists will have no fault at all and their survivors can sue within two years for liabilities. (Actually, it is the respective insurance companies that pay on the behave of the drivers responsible and increase the premiums accordingly next year).

NOTE: this only gives you a basic concept and the exact mechanism may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in Ontario, the accident benefits are fixed (say, standard ward in a hospital if you are injured) according to law, and if you want more coverage (eg, private ward in a hospital with cable TV) , you have to buy more from your own insurance company.

The woman who made this decision is barking mad.

I think you meant:

For the initial rear-ender the first guy is 100% at fault and the SAG driver is 0% at fault, so the first guy has to pay 100% of the damages caused by the initial rear-ending of the SAG vehicle.

For the second rear-ending, the first guy is 50% at fault and the SAG driver is 50% at fault, so the first guy pays 50% for any damage that was caused by the SAG hitting the cyclists, and the SAG driver pays the other 50%.

In other words, the first guy pays 100% for any damage caused to his vehicle and the rear of the SAG wagon, and 50% of any damage caused to or by the front of the SAG wagon, while the SAG driver pays 50% for any damage caused to or by the front of the SAG wagon.

Right?

I see what you mean. Your analysis is probably correct but I do not know the details since I am not in the insurance industry. Insurance regulations in Canada merely says that the initial rear-ender (ie, the last car in a multi-pile up) is 100% at fault, the second, third, etc., rear enders are all 50% at fault, until the first vehicle which has no fault. USA probably has similar regulations.

However, it also gives us a clue why charges are not laid in this case. If the the truck driver is charged with, say, careless driving, the SAG wagon driver should also be subject to a lesser charge of, say, following too close (following a group of cyclists at 15 - 20 mpg, a minimum of two car lengths should be maintained). If the SAG wagon driver is also "one of their own", then probably, police will hesitate to laid any charges. In all common law areas, you have to "come to court with a clean hand".