City says it shouldn't pay for officer's fatal wreck

#1 WHOA!!!

What a bogus argument from the city. If the OFFICER had been the one killed in this wreck by a citizen, would they be saying it wasn't a line of duty death? I highly doubt it. It's convenient to say a cop on his way to roll call should stop if they see a crime or stranded motorist or whatever, but let the cop do something wrong and suddenly he's not "technically" on duty. Oh please.

This was a tragic accident.

Metro Government has tried this crap before, trying to absolve theselves of liability. I have seen Officers involved in accidents on their way to and from work that they covered as "on duty" and others they left out to dry. It is bull crap. If this is the case then what does 24/7 actually stand for? If we take action off duty then we are acting under color of law and officially on duty I guess. The problem is they expect us to come to work prepaired to role and the take home car program is set up so that the city doesn't have to provide lockers, changing rooms and equipment storage and that Officers are ready to roll at the begining of the shift.

Sorry Metro Government, but it is your car and whether or not he was "on duty" or not this tragedy happened. Abramson is really good about saying heis not liable yet they pay out the but to settle suits they could easily fight and win. It would be funny if it were not so tragic, because for years he would let his cronies handle cases and then they would reap a huge salary and settle out of court anyway.

I feel sorry for the Officer involved also. There is not day that goes by that he doesn't have to live with what happened. He was disciplined by the department ( 30 days an no car indefinitely ) Sounds like double jeapordy to me. They disciplined him and basically stated he ad some fault and now they want to say that none of it had anything to do with them. Again, it was their car he was in. It sounds like this will be a landmark case in the state to determine exactly what 24/7 means and on duty in a car means.

I have mixed feelings on this one. Im well aware of how the law is

worded regarding an employee and defining on duty, but think this one

is all around a slippery issue.

In defense of the city, its volatile

to say that the determination is less in the action being performed,

and more in the vehicle driven. The exact same scenario, same person,

same action, same destination, but in a private vehicle would have

absolved the city of the entire responsibility. It could influence any

other accident from an insurance companys standpoint. Imagine if it was

a multi car accident, with one "on duty" person from company A, and a

"non-duty" from company B. The third party who was injured would have a

vested interest in the person "on duty" being at fault, because it

would inherently be a bigger payday via the lawsuit.

Also, with this merely being the act of travelling from one point

to another, what if this had been an officer simply using the take home

car to go somewhere, say the mall, on an off duty day. As you are

required to be armed, the only thing changed would be the uniform.

Im not sure how much liability the city should have over an adult,

that they cannot feasibly monitor all the time. What about a first

offence officer who gets drunk and wrecks his police car, while not "on

duty"? Should the city be responsible for him as well, or should his

actions make him responsible for himself? It really comes down to

responsibility, and if this person was given a firearm, a badge, and

the means to enforce the law, then should the city really be

responsible for what he does of his own volition?

this scenario also draws a divisive line on who "wins" the lottery

here. Why should this mans family receive millions just because he is a

city employee, when the exact same accident would net only the

insurance payout from Joe Q Citizen?

On the contrary side, this is a manifestation of what I have been

saying for so long. While the officer is responsible for his own

actions, the fact that there has been reasonable evidence that the very

same driving habits that caused this accident have been going on and

continue today, is commonplace. The cadre of the LMPD know very well,

the driving habits of its officers, or MANY of its officers anyway, and

choose to do nothing proactive about it. To me, that is excusing it,

and painting the picture that they only act upon something when they

are forced to. As I have said before, to take active steps to stop

certain driving habits would "negatively affect morale" as told to me

personally by Col Turner.

Maybe I am mistaken here, but wasnt this accident right around the

same time as Jason Browns, oneway street accident? Werent there a

number of LMPD at fault accidents all within a few months? If it is

indeed the one I am thinking it is, then there was a ridiculous number

of cars that responded to this scene. I was almost positive that it

actually occurred on 264 at the intersection of 64, and wasnt so much

on the shoulder emergency lane, as it was the area between the entrance

lanes from the 64 west exit, and the main tavel section of 264. They

had even gone so far as to station a car on the Browns lane overpass to

keep people from getting anywhere near the scene. Maybe I am getting

multiple accidents mixed up here, well, either that or I am losing my

memory.

I feel sorry for the family in that they lost a member of their

family who was simply trying to be a "hero" to a friend, and help them

out. Im just not sure the city should be on the hook for the obvious

"accident" caused by an employee. I would like to see it as more of an

impetus to change the "blind eye" paid to the driving habits of many

cops.

It's pathetic what this city and police department have come to, everybody be warned if they're willing to bail out on you in a car accident then they certainly will on things like shootings, controversial arrest, bogus complaints by citizens,etc. If it makes them look in a not so desirable way or cost them money, the common soldier is screwed when the **** hits the fan.

I'm sorry the guy died but he was stopped in a double white line divider with the emergency lane literally one lane over. At some point common sense should step in and say you probably don't want to be there. But this is typical LMPD protocol these days for our illustrious command staff to turn their backs on us. On top of a bad command staff you also have to contend with the Keystone Cops in PSU/PIU. I have never in the entire time i've been on seen a department field such ridiculous complaints. And it doesn't matter how meager the complaint is you still are treated with disrespect. I for one have a big problem sitting in a room being judged by two "investigators" who have never done a days worth of real police work. There is a Sergeant in PSU whose only time spent riding the beat was in her FTO phase. Yet she can make an honest "evaluation" of what your day to day duties are as a patrol officer? Our best means of support is going to be the guy or gal who stands shoulder to shoulder with you everyday. As ole Fugate would say, "You have enemies both foreign and domestic."

Who remembers these words? DUE REGARD!, then the LMPD Officer Violated KRS 189.940B. Let me put it to you this way, if I drove my Engine, Ladder or Rescue Apparatus in a manner, without DUE REGARD, that resulted in the death of private citizen, if I was lucky, the least that would happen is that I would lose my job. All through the Fire Academy and then through the Apparatus Operator/Engineer's Course, it was pounded into my head, stamped on my butt and tattooed on my chest, wait for it... DUE REGARD! Oops there is that pesky term again. I am so tired of the excuses I hear (read) about LMPD accidents. Now granted there may be somewhat of extenuating circumstances, but there is still the fact the vehicle was being operated without DUE REGARD! Remember, whether EMS, FIRE or POLICE,, we must operate our vehicles at all times with DUE REGARD, for the public. WE ARE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY... Just because we have lights siren, does not mean that it is automatic.

Just so everyone knows, there is a movement among citizens, politicians and PD, FD, EMS personnel, albeit it is a small one, but there is a movement to do away with lights and sirens on emergency vehicles, one of their arguments is that it only gets us their a few seconds faster. Now I for one am against it, a few seconds may be all that matters for us to do a rescue, instead of a recovery. But we had better WAKE UP, PAY ATTENTION START LISTENING! Because if we do not start holding our peers accountable and correct our driving habits, then we may be trying to respond to an emergency, without the benefit of one of our most useful tools for that means. I mean really, who thought it was a good idea to try and blame the victim, oh yeah like that is going to win us points and makes us friends. Seriously, just remember this, would you want your family on the road, if there was someone driving the way we do at times? (this includes myself driving Code 3) There are times that I say to myself, uhhh... No.

What about Randy Wells?

Something to think about.

He unfortunatly died, off duty. Was it ruled an "in the line of duty" death?

Should it have been?

The situations are similair... did Randy's family sue? Was the other party responsible for the accident? Although Randy was the victim, he was in his patrol car, and working.

What about the aforementioned arguments about the take home cars? Are you on duty when your family is with you running errands? Are you on duty when you are plain clothed, driving to and from non work related functions? Just my opinion: YES YOU ARE. The reasononing? That vehicle is NOT YOURS. You didn't want to pay for it, correct? Why would you want to pay for something that isn't yours? Well that statement makes sense. So if the police cars aren't yours; you're not paying for them, then who do they belong to? The City. Therefore, while in them, you are a city servant. Being a city servant, in the CITY'S vehicle, you should be responsible while driving it. That's all it comes down to. DUE REGARD. RESPONSIBILITY. The Officer needs to take some responsibility for his actions.

Where are people geting the idea the officer is not taking responsibility for his actions? He has. You people are acting like he is trying to side step the issue. The thing is, YOU GUYS are debating it now, long after it has happened. He has taken responsibility, and always will.

Your finger pointing is completely out of line.

I have not checked the site for a few days and am now catching up. The two main issues that seem to be debated here are: officer's driving habits, and whether or not the city is responsible to pay millions for the victim of a wreck.

The wreck - It was an ACCIDENT. A horrible accident where life was lost. Not intentional. The officer was not being reckless (most officers won't even write a speeding ticket for the amount he was going over). The officer is partially at fault, but the other parties/victims also share some fault (could have gotten out of the roadway and when it was clear - push the vehicle to the shoulder and then put gas in it. Or even better, the driver should have coasted to the shoulder to begin with, thereby not exposing the victim to traffic and death. The victim chose to expose himself.) We can all debate the ins and outs of this forever. In the end - it was an ACCIDENT. The only reason we are having the on duty/off duty debate is the pending lawsuits. Why is this? ATTORNEYS and JUDGES. We as a society have allowed attorneys to sue anyone for any reason and any amount, and we have no judges that will hold them in check. If the striking car would have been driven by 'joe shmuckitelli' it wouldn't even be an issue.

Driving habits - While not on a run, officers do obey the traffic devices and speed limits. It is a lot easier to spot trouble going slowly than speeding by. When being called to any number of important calls, officers do speed up and attempt to get there faster in order to stop an assault, help EMS, save a life, prevent a murderer from escaping, etc.... Ask yourself this: If it were your family - Would you want the Police to hurry, or just get there when they get there?

KICKBACKS

That cant be said enough!

I always told my recruits that if you dont get there and get there safley you are no good to anyone. Dont be part of the problem.