LMPD :: Louisville Metro Police Department
IMAGE
137 Comments

LMPD officer indicted on misconduct, harassment charges

IMAGE

RE: LMPD officer indicted on misconduct, harassment charges

February 16th, 2011 @ 11:12PM (13 years ago)
Posted by: AllieMac

Oh, FFS. Are you a member of her family?

I know it's a bit like beating a dead horse here, but I guess it bears repeating THAT SHE WAS DRUNK. Had she not been drunk, like any normal sane sober person, she would have had the ability to think to herself, "Gee, that car is traveling awfully fast... perhaps I SHOULDN'T PULL OUT IN FRONT OF IT."

But she was drunk. And from what I've read and heard, texting. And upset about something. Oh, and drunk.

I'm sorry this girl is dead. I know people who knew her and it seems she was a sweet girl. But she, and her family, made an incredibly stupid, tragic mistake that night. Because her family made the choice to let her get behind the wheel of a car drunk and because she, an adult, made the choice to drive drunk. THAT is why she is dead. The officer could have been traveling 25mph... it wouldn't have necessarily mattered because... c'mon, let's say it together now... three tiny one syllable words... SHE WAS DRUNK and drove in front of his moving vehicle.

If it were anyone other than a police officer, no one would have a word to say. Drunk driver pulls in front of moving vehicle. Drunk driver dead. Other driver, thankfully uninjured. Period.

RE: LMPD officer indicted on misconduct, harassment charges

February 16th, 2011 @ 11:47PM (13 years ago)

stop hatin on the police because you failed the physical or your just to stupid to pass the first test. You better get ready if you want your mom to drop you off at your fairgrounds security job on her way to the grocery.

RE: LMPD officer indicted on misconduct, harassment charges

February 17th, 2011 @ 8:35AM (13 years ago)

"I have a question to all of the officers that wrote the Detective wasn't guilty for driving 85 in a 45 mph zone that resulted in a death because he wasn't indicted by the grand jury, does this mean this Detective IS guilty because he was indicted? I believe you all used "he wasn't indicted by the grand jury therefor he's not guilty because they only indict guilty people" line."

John, to answer your question, yes in my opinion this means that there was enough evidence to prove that this soom to be former officer indeed committed a crime. In the other case you mention, obviously there was not enough evidence to support an indictment. I would hope that that this proves to you that the system works, but expect nothing from you.