The only new light it puts on is that the mother was tired of her daughter's actions. Still doesn't make what the officer did right. He should be fired. If she dies I hope he is brought up on manslaughter charges. If it was a civilian driving 20 mph over you know they would be brought up on charges.

 

Didn't it say that up to 20mph over the limit is within policy? If so he won't be fired. Should be taken out of a car though.

Didn't it say that up to 20mph over the limit is within policy? If so he won't be fired. Should be taken out of a car though.

 

Strangely the article's headline offers a mixed message speaking of a violation while indicating that he was 20 mph over (which is within department policy), then the first paragraph claims that he was 25 mph over, and that he was indeed in violation of department policy. Some eyewitnesses claim that he was going even faster than that. Who can you believe as eyeballs are not radar equipped and can only estimate?

 

I understand that sometimes an officer has to put the pedal to the metal, but while going through areas with a significant amount of pedestrians, they need to slow down come hell or high water. Taking the risk of causing a serious accident while on the way to address another serious issue just adds fuel to the fire, and then you have two serious issues to deal with. Haste makes waste.

One a lighter note... how many cliches can you all use in one post? I counted a few too many in my last post. :eek:

The only new light it puts on is that the mother was tired of her daughter's actions. Still doesn't make what the officer did right. He should be fired. If she dies I hope he is brought up on manslaughter charges. If it was a civilian driving 20 mph over you know they would be brought up on charges.

 

Lights and Sirens on and victim roams out into the street in front of him. Not sure how much of this is on the officer, even with his past history. Is there really that much difference in 45 and 50 mph? If' he's driving 5 mph slower (within department limits) accident would have still happened in all likelihood.

The only new light it puts on is that the mother was tired of her daughter's actions. Still doesn't make what the officer did right. He should be fired. If she dies I hope he is brought up on manslaughter charges. If it was a civilian driving 20 mph over you know they would be brought up on charges.

 

Civilians aren't given lights and sirens and tasked with driving fast to emergency calls. So your comparison doesn't work.

Lights and Sirens on and victim roams out into the street in front of him. Not sure how much of this is on the officer, even with his past history. Is there really that much difference in 45 and 50 mph? If' he's driving 5 mph slower (within department limits) accident would have still happened in all likelihood.

 

Darwin's theory at work. :lol2:

Strangely the article's headline offers a mixed message speaking of a violation while indicating that he was 20 mph over (which is within department policy), then the first paragraph claims that he was 25 mph over, and that he was indeed in violation of department policy. Some eyewitnesses claim that he was going even faster than that. Who can you believe as eyeballs are not radar equipped and can only estimate?

 

I understand that sometimes an officer has to put the pedal to the metal, but while going through areas with a significant amount of pedestrians, they need to slow down come hell or high water. Taking the risk of causing a serious accident while on the way to address another serious issue just adds fuel to the fire, and then you have two serious issues to deal with. Haste makes waste.

 

I guess we'll have to wait until the report establishes how fast he was going. Should be interesting.

With driving being such a critical component of the job, if an officer shows himself/herself to be excessively accident-prone shouldn't that be a pretty solid grounds for dismissal?

 

How much is the department having to pay to clean up after the mess in terms of vehicle repairs and lawsuits and medical bills, not to mention lost work time for the officer during investigations into the incident? And while I'm on the subject of insurance, how does that work? Does the municipality's premiums go up when hit with a big settlement? What kind of bill does the taxpayers get hit with?

 

Five at fault accidents and he still has a job? Why?

 

That is a very good question. Was he the chiefs nephew or something? Close to retirement?

I think there is something very fishy going on with this officer. I think he should be charged, sorry but I do. something doesn't sound right when he already has 5 at fault accidents and this time witnesses say he swas going much faster than 25 over and the dash cam doesn't have any video before or shrtly after the accident yet he is claiming he was only going 20 mph over which is within dept policy.....nah something stinks here. He should be charged if there is any evidence of him going outside dept policy.

I think there is something very fishy going on with this officer. I think he should be charged, sorry but I do. something doesn't sound right when he already has 5 at fault accidents and this time witnesses say he swas going much faster than 25 over and the dash cam doesn't have any video before or shrtly after the accident yet he is claiming he was only going 20 mph over which is within dept policy.....nah something stinks here. He should be charged if there is any evidence of him going outside dept policy.

 

1.) Why do the 5 accidents before have anything to do with this one, in your opinion?

2.) Do you think untrained civilians at night can tell how fast he was actually going, better than trained professionals who will investigate the accident?

3.) Going outside of department policy doesn't mean he broke laws.

 

Before you freak out, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be fired/charged. I'm not investigating the accident so I can't really make that decision. Not with the knowledge we have about the crash.

1.) Why do the 5 accidents before have anything to do with this one, in your opinion?

2.) Do you think untrained civilians at night can tell how fast he was actually going, better than trained professionals who will investigate the accident?

3.) Going outside of department policy doesn't mean he broke laws.

 

Before you freak out, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be fired/charged. I'm not investigating the accident so I can't really make that decision. Not with the knowledge we have about the crash.

1. It shows a pattern of wreckless driving.

2. Yes if he was going fast enough it's not too difficult to tell if someone is going over 20 mph if he is in fact going way over that. You do know that police officers aren't "trained professionals" when it comes to that also don't you?

3. Sure it does in some circumstances.

I'm not shocked that she was on heroin....was my first thought when I saw the headline. Otherwise, why is a 36 year old Dayton, KY woman roaming the streets there at night??

 

It's easy, soooo easy, to blame the victim here and she does indeed bear some responsibility for this accident. HOWEVER, his badge should not make him immune to discipline. The City won't want to come down too hard because that may make them liable in a lawsuit so he is free to keep on doing what he has been doing which isn't right or safe.

1. It shows a pattern of wreckless driving. 2. Yes if he was going fast enough it's not too difficult to tell if someone is going over 20 mph if he is in fact going way over that. You do know that police officers aren't "trained professionals" when it comes to that also don't you? 3. Sure it does in some circumstances.

 

"wreckless" driving would be great.

 

You don't know that it shows a pattern of reckless driving without investigating each of those accidents. Just because he's at fault in a collision doesn't mean he was being reckless.

 

It is actually very hard for someone who is untrained to guess someone's speed. If you are walking down the street that police cruiser with lights and sirens is possibly going to look much faster than it actually is. Eye witness testimony is very unreliable as it is, but asking untrained eye witnesses to give a speed estimate isn't going to be reliable at all.

 

And yes, police are trained to estimate speeds from moving vehicles. Its part of their radar training.

Been trying to put my finger on one word that describes this terribly unfortunate occurrence. Through the Urban Dictionary I came upon "Malandipity" or "Malandipitous" where one of the definitions is "a series of events that converge on an unfortunate outcome".

 

In my daily life, especially while driving, I try to remain as aware as I humanly can of this type of possibly disastrous phenomenon.

(Sometimes the outcome can be positive and wonderful, and you win the lottery or meet the love of your life)...but I digress...

 

For example, I might notice 5 blocks up the way that children are playing in the street, or on the sidewalk with a ball, and know too well that a child will follow a loose ball like a hypnotized zombie without an inkling of thought of the dangers. It's merely reactive without too much life experience to contemplate the harmful possibilities for them.

 

I might take a couple of minutes re-routing to reconvene to the road that I was originally on by avoiding it for a few blocks, if that option is available, or carefully crawl through the child filled area praying to God that my alternative cautionary actions do not create a situation, or another unforeseen situation that I was originally carefully trying to avoid. In these such situations, you just never know, for another malandipitous circumstance could arrive around another corner that you have no possible way of foreseeing.

 

An OCD (worry wart) person such as myself could ultimately fear ever leaving the house knowing that you never really know what you're going to encounter by doing so. Obviously that is not much of an option if you have certain responsibilities to tend to, or are prone to suffer greatly from cabin fever. The great lesson that goes far back to my highly appreciated parental guidance is to always be careful and to look before you leap. Anticipate your path. Keep alert. Look both ways. Sadly though, no matter how careful, you just never know.

 

Then there are those who appear to take a careless attitude while navigating through life such as speeding through a crowded shopping center parking lot assuming they are the only ones there, or plowing through a crowded grocery store around aisles with a cart again assuming that they are the only ones there. This will forever perplex me as to how these type folks appear never to have figured it out that they are sharing space with a multitude of others. Their chances of accidents must be greatly increased, however some appear to have their angels working overtime to prevent them from harm. It reminds me of the old cartoon where the man keeps being saved as he's walking through hazards that he never takes notice of. (My memory can't place the name of this cartoon, so if anyone remembers it, I'd love to relive these hilarious videos on Youtube, as I imagine they're probably available).

 

My gut is telling me there's another word other than "Malandipity" that has the same meaning, but it will just not come to me. If anyone knows the word that I've been grabbing for, I'd love to know what it is.

1.) Why do the 5 accidents before have anything to do with this one, in your opinion?

 

If an officer goes to a house where there are frequent incidents of domestic disturbances, is the officer not using the fact that there is a pattern of that type behavior at this address to determine his/her course of action when assessing the incident?

 

My point being, there may be extenuating circumstances each different time, but as a whole it looks like this address is predisposed toward spousal dust-ups, the same way the officer in question in this accident looks to have problems driving safely.