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

He has to live with what happened, yes, but he WAS at fault in the accident. I know this crap the city is pulling in an attempt to leave KM holding the ball on any potential $ settlement is ridiculous, but nothing changes the fact that he was at fault in the accident and the findings stated such. It doesn't make it less of an "accident" mind you, but it's worth noting. Double jeopardy is something completely different from what you are trying to infer, too, by the way.

I still agree-- the on or off duty discussion regarding him being in the car is absolute hogwash. They want to have every circumstance fit their convenience. If it suits them to have him classified "on duty", they will. If it suits them to go the other way, they will. I think if they want to fight this case on the basis that he wasn't technically on duty then they need to concede that all future incidents require NO action by a police officer who has not yet gotten to roll call and "checked in" so to speak. Of course they won't do that, but that's what this conjures up in my head