drunk officer kills motorcyclist

[IndyMonkey]

So this guys life is hanging on one piece of evidence.

I'm done talking about his life until after he has made his way through the court system.

 

[chubbs]

So how many other blood tests have they made this mistake on. Must be a first time mistake, like the officers first time being drunk at work.

 

[MinuteMan47]

You might want to check your definition of murder again. I'm not sticking up for this guy, but what he did is not a murder outside of TV. Homicide is not the same thing as murder. Learn the difference.

There may not be a difference. Every murder is a homicide. Every homicide isn't a murder. You're wrong in this instance because this homicide is not a murder.

I have not gone to law school to learn the difference. A dictionary could do you some good.

I'd say calling this conduct negligent is too nice. Reckless and criminal is more like it.

So, I got a dictionary...

...and I'm still wondering why you jumped my ass based on the definitions.

Murder means you had the intent of killing a person and it was thought out.
Reckless Homicide means you just didn't care if someone died.

Is one better than the other....?!

 

[MrsGungho]

So, I got a dictionary...

...and I'm still wondering why you jumped my ass based on the definitions.

Murder means you had the intent of killing a person and it was thought out.
Reckless Homicide means you just didn't care if someone died.

Is one better than the other....?!

in my book no. dead is dead

 

[MinuteMan47]

in my book no. dead is dead

For those definitions....In my book a KILLER is a KILLER...

He murdered that guy. He plowed him over when he had a chance to go around, and he THOUGHT about getting behind the wheel before he did it.

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh, the irony.
MADD spurns cop it honored | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star
he was a DUI go getter. Wonder how many pending DUI cases he might be part of?

 

[Eddie]

Oh, the irony.
MADD spurns cop it honored | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star
he was a DUI go getter. Wonder how many pending DUI cases he might be part of?

I will probably take heat for this but I dislike some of the things that MADD does. I don't like the idea of giving awards to police officers based on the the number and type of arrests that they make. I also do not like the idea of a private organization providing equipment to police departments in order to encourage a certain type of law enforcement. I feel the same way about prosecutors providing money to police departments to fund certain types of enforcement. I think that donations to law enforcement should come without strings attached and that no award should be based on a volume of a certain type of arrest.

 

[E5RANGER375]

To the medic team that showed up administering care for those who arrived to the scene of the crash; how easy is it to tell if someone is drunk or not? What about at the levels reported in the story?

im no paramedic, but I am a Nationaly Certified First Responder and My instructor worked in the medical field on the street for many years and told us that because of hipaa we are NOT allowed to tell the police if a patient is drunk even if they ask. and theres nothing they can do about it. you can be VERY vague and say he had a sweet odor coming from him, but you CANNOT say alcohol. at least thats the way its supposed to be. again, i dont work in the medical proffession, im just certified for the work i do, but this info did come from a former paramedic/firefighter.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Oh, the irony.
MADD spurns cop it honored | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star
he was a DUI go getter. Wonder how many pending DUI cases he might be part of?

What an upstanding group of people to find the officer guilty before the trial.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Kinda hate to tell you but your wife is wrong. I read your post and did not ever recall any kind of swab being in the kits. SO I went out to my trunk and got one out and opened it up. There is NO type of swab in the kits.
The kit contains a urine bottle, two gray topped tubes,a plastic bag used to seal the completed test,one evidence seal,three biohazard labels and a IU school of toxicology Drug analysis form. Nothing more. No needles or needle kits. Alcohol swabs MAY NOT be used on ISP blood draw kits. The ISP blood draw kit contains detailed instructions for both the officer and the person drawing the sample. It clearly states on line 1 "Clean Skin with non-alcohol disinfectant (i.e. Betadine" And then line 2 says Draw blood with a clean (Alcohol free) needle or syringe".

It appears that prosecution could have a big problem with their case. You will have a multitude of eye whiteness who will have to say they did not notice or suspect any impairment. And in addition to a botched blood draw.

As denny said, OWI is a technical arrest. The defense lawyers have made it that way. They are generally one silly lawyer game after the other. That is the reason I avoid OWI arrests if at all possible. I see a sweet plea agreement coming up.

the test kits they use arent for drunks they are for medical exams and drug screens etc. Im not wrong because im looking at one of the freeeking kits right now. you come tell my wife shes wrong, good luck. you wanna come see it? might be another kit that you use because some lawyer got his panties in a bunch and tried to get his client off on a technicality over a .001 difference due to a alcohol swab. but the alcohol swab will not skew the difference to .19.
if they took blood on the guy then he's guilty in my eyes. but sure we will wait for the jury trial.

 

[Eddie]

the test kits they use arent for drunks they are for medical exams and drug screens etc. Im not wrong because im looking at one of the freeeking kits right now. you come tell my wife shes wrong, good luck. you wanna come see it? might be another kit that you use because some lawyer got his panties in a bunch and tried to get his client off on a technicality over a .001 difference due to a alcohol swab. but the alcohol swab will not skew the difference to .19.
if they took blood on the guy then he's guilty

I thought my wife was wrong once but she told me differently.

 

[Indy317]

I understand that he is your friend/acquaintance and your judgement is skewed, but that guy is guilty. I really just don't see how there is an argument against it.

He isn't my friend/acquaintance, but I wouldn't base my judgment on a simple test. Thankfully they have additional blood (so they say), which should put the issue to rest. I am of the mind he is 99% guilty, but given all the cops that get arrested for DUI, these cries of cover-up are laughable. I don't care what the cops initially said, given the type of run he was on, the speed he was going, etc.., I felt the city would be paying anyway, drunk or not.

We have civilians who said nothing about this guy appearing intoxicated. We also have two other civilian witnesses, according to the FOP president, who were in the room when the blood was drawn. I would like to get their comments. Did they smell booze? Did they find his movements consistent with that of someone who was drunk? Errors happen, and they may or may not have happened in this case.

When you get your arm swabbed with anything(alcohol included, which evaporates), that liquid isn't dripping off of your arm.

You must have never used a Safetec p.a.w.s. wipe. The ones I had could easily have had enough liquid to drip off your arm. I personally don't buy the alcohol swipe argument, it is a defense attorney play, because the cheap pads do have a very minor amount and you are correct in that it evaporates quickly.

if they took blood on the guy then he's guilty

So long as the lab didn't screw up a bunch of blood samples.

 

[MinuteMan47]

the test kits they use arent for drunks they are for medical exams and drug screens etc. Im not wrong because im looking at one of the freeeking kits right now. you come tell my wife shes wrong, good luck. you wanna come see it? might be another kit that you use because some lawyer got his panties in a bunch and tried to get his client off on a technicality over a .001 difference due to a alcohol swab. but the alcohol swab will not skew the difference to .19.
if they took blood on the guy then he's guilty

PICS!!!!!!

Seriously, this whole situation makes me want to PUKE.

If this guy gets off because someone didn't administer the test correctly then you can bet I won't be the only person who is pissed off about this. (Even though I already am)

If that is the case, then they need to pull ALL of the DUI cases that have been administed by the same person and if they were executed in the same manner then those people need to get off easy too. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, but fair is fair.

Must have been their first rodeo...

 

[Knife Lady]

Lets just say for minute that the LEO was not drunk.
Ok then what would make him run over the guys instead of going around them or even stopping???? If not drunk then soemthing had to be wrong with him. Noone just plows over people. Not anyone in their right frame of mind. That is a question I would like answered. How could he not see those guys??
So I am saying something is wrong with this guy one way or the other.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Lets just say for minute that the LEO was not drunk.
Ok then what would make him run over the guys instead of going around them or even stopping???? If not drunk then soemthing had to be wrong with him. Noone just plows over people. Not anyone in their right frame of mind. That is a question I would like answered. How could he not see those guys??
So I am saying something is wrong with this guy one way or the other.

i agree, like i said before, why was he going so fast. why was he going lights and siregn for a warrant (which now we know he didnt even need to be there ricky tic), how could he not see 2 motorcycles? a lot of questions.
I dont know the senior staff that was supposedly on scene, but i will say that just because they are senior staff doesnt make me immediately trust what they say. you dont get to ANY top possition without playing the game.

 

[Denny347]

Lets just say for minute that the LEO was not drunk.
Ok then what would make him run over the guys instead of going around them or even stopping???? If not drunk then soemthing had to be wrong with him. Noone just plows over people. Not anyone in their right frame of mind. That is a question I would like answered. How could he not see those guys??
So I am saying something is wrong with this guy one way or the other.

Oh, he is gonna be responsible for the collision. It is ultimately our responsiblilty if we hit someone going lights/sirens. Now can a part of the blame be dumped ont he dept for equipment issues...I don't know. His car had just left the garage for brakes/ABS issues...for the 4th time and they said nothing wrong. ABS did not function at the scene. Now does that mean he should have driven slower knowing they were letting him drive a broken car even though they said it was fine...probably. But in the end, we as LEO's are resposible for collisions that happen while we are responding hot unless the other driver does something blantant to disregard the patrol car. That was not the case here. It appears that the cyclists did nothing at all to lead to the crash. They were stopped at a red light...there is no where SAFE for them to have gone. So sad for them...so tragic.

 

[theweakerbrother]

If a jury is looking for a test subject on what one's BAC can be with alcohol swabs versus a BAC blood content with nonalcohol swabs, I'd volunteer. I've had my blood drawn literally 60-80 times.

I'm no drunk so I don't know what a .17 BAC level is like, but it would seem very easy to determine if this is a legitimate criticism or not.

 

[antsi]

I will probably take heat for this but I dislike some of the things that MADD does. I don't like the idea of giving awards to police officers based on the the number and type of arrests that they make. I also do not like the idea of a private organization providing equipment to police departments in order to encourage a certain type of law enforcement. I feel the same way about prosecutors providing money to police departments to fund certain types of enforcement. I think that donations to law enforcement should come without strings attached and that no award should be based on a volume of a certain type of arrest.

No heat from me. I totally agree.

I also disagree with a lot of the legislation they support. Continually lowering the threshold of DUI, for instance, I do not believe is going to help matters.

Whenever I read a story about a bad DUI wreck with fatalities, it seems the perp had five or six previous DUIs, was driving on a suspended license, and had a BAC of .20 or .30

I don't see how ruthless prosecution of people who are at .07 is going to change this. Yes, I know that small amounts of alcohol can impair judgement and reaction times - but the bad DUI fatalities don't seem to hinge on a .002 seconds reaction time. If a guy is drunk enough to drive in to someone' living room, or drive the wrong way on the freaking interstate, this is not a matter of "slightly impaired reaction time," it's a matter of driving a car when you're near-comatose.

Mind you, you are hearing this from a complete tea-totaler. I don't ever drink any alcohol whatsoever, so I don't have any personal agenda for looser DUI laws.

I just don't think these kind of laws are targeting the people who are really causing the problems.

 

[Jay]

I just don't think these kind of laws are targeting the people who are really causing the problems.

All due respect, and not trying to be a wise a$$ at all, but who are "the people who are really causing the problems", if not those who are drinking and driving...

 

[public servant]

All due respect, and not trying to be a wise a$$ at all, but who are "the people who are really causing the problems", if not those who are drinking and driving...

I think he was referring to those on the higher end of the BAC scale. But I disagree. With over a decade in the fire service, I cut enough dead bodies out of cars from wrecks caused by "buzzed" drivers.