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

Problem was, he wasn't "taking action" when this happen, he was commuting to work, and doing it, at best, recklessly.

I beg to differ, he WAS taking action. An Officer is required to monitor the radio and respond to certain runs and to stop for stranded motorists and collisions and to take action necessary and feasible upon observing law violations. To do this you must observe visually and audibly. So YE,S he was taking action as all officers are when driving an LMPD car off duty. They hung themselves with thier own policies..........................again. LMPD will LOSE...............................again.

we are already strongly advised to have personal insurance on the vehicles for cases like this. sorry, but anyone who does not have a rider for when they are in the police vehicle is foolish because we cannot count on metro goverment to back us in any case.

I know that it is not legal double jeopardy. I said I can see the point the poster was trying to make using a comparison of double jeopardy. Still, by the standards that have been set by the dept and by actions of officers who have responded to incidents while on there way to work, the officer should be considered on duty under the circumstances. If he had not taken action on something then they would have punished him for that.

Every cop knows that you are never really off duty. And the city knows that too. Thats why you have to be armed at all times and thats why policy states what it does about taking action when you roll up on something. They can get you from both angles if they wanted to.

I think this will change some things about when an officer is technically on duty and when officers will be required to respond to something.