http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Officer-fined-_185-for-speeding-in-crash-that-paralyzed-boy-1597329-108773219.html

 

Cop nails a 14 year with his cruiser on the way to a second job. Because he does it in a cruiser (while off-duty), he's covered under limited liability. City/County cover the cost of the lawsuit, cop gets off with a $185 ticket plus court fees.

 

I can see if it's a tragedy when a cop hits someone responding to a call, but as far as I am concerned, they should set an example and follow all transportation guidelines to the letter. In this instance, going 56 in a 25, he was going way too fast.

 

Thoughts?

He was going 56 in a 30, while in his cruiser, yet he was not on duty.....he then hit someone, and all he got was a $185 ticket? Wow. I wonder if he had prior approval for the second job.

Sadly for all the fantastic LE out there, this is the type that gives them a bad name. He should be fired, and possibly brought up on charges.

Sadly for all the fantastic LE out there, this is the type that gives them a bad name. He should be fired, and possibly brought up on charges.

 

He should be treated no differently from you and I.

He should be treated no differently from you and I.

I agree with you Devs. He is off duty isn't he a citizen like us?

"Montgomery County District Court judge found Cokinos not guilty of negligent driving or contributing to an accident"

 

 

 

 

Speeding?

I agree with you Devs. He is off duty isn't he a citizen like us?

 

Apparently, being off-duty, but driving your taxpayer bought and fueled cruiser allows you to retain limited liability from the department (in this instance). So not only is this kid paralyzed, the taxpayers get screwed due to increased premiums from the resulting lawsuit.

Alot of TWPs actually promote drivng their patrol cars off duty , it acts as kinda a deterant with more patrol cars being seen around the town ....

WHO do u think is the biggest culprit for DWIs?? hmmmm, im sure u can guess the answer.

WHO do u think is the biggest culprit for DWIs?? hmmmm, im sure u can guess the answer.

Drunk people??

Alot of TWPs actually promote drivng their patrol cars off duty , it acts as kinda a deterant with more patrol cars being seen around the town ....

I dont totally oppose that. However, driving 56 is a 30 is definitely a no-no, regardless of whether it is a cruiser or their personal vehicle. If I were an officer, I would likely opt out of driving the cruiser to my house. Would it deter the average burglar? Yes. Would it deter someone I arrested? No, it would mark where I live. I see the point in it, but I think that in those situations it just attracts more attention.

I dont totally oppose that. However, driving 56 is a 30 is definitely a no-no, regardless of whether it is a cruiser or their personal vehicle. If I were an officer, I would likely opt out of driving the cruiser to my house. Would it deter the average burglar? Yes. Would it deter someone I arrested? No, it would mark where I live. I see the point in it, but I think that in those situations it just attracts more attention.

Very true , many of my officer friends tell me of how their lawns are vandalized with empty beer cans ,liquor bottles , drug users needles and people just driving completely across their yards leaving skid marks so yeah its definitely marks their address

If I was a cop, I'd park my cruiser in front of my butt-hole neighbor's house just to divert problems from my home and bring on to hers.

Double Tap...how'd that happen?

A cop should not be able to take a department car home. If you are not working, you dont use the tools of the job.

I say fire his a**, apply the law with me and against me...no break because he is a cop...

The cop must have been allowed to take the car home or personal use for the department to be found liable.

 

Say I own a moving company, and my employee takes the van on a vacation (outside of his job route).. not my fault.. all on him.

 

Now if he was working and stopped at the wawa for coffee and backed into someone, I could be found liable because that's not a major deviation from normal duty.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Officer-fined-_185-for-speeding-in-crash-that-paralyzed-boy-1597329-108773219.html

 

Cop nails a 14 year with his cruiser on the way to a second job. Because he does it in a cruiser (while off-duty), he's covered under limited liability. City/County cover the cost of the lawsuit, cop gets off with a $185 ticket plus court fees.

 

I can see if it's a tragedy when a cop hits someone responding to a call, but as far as I am concerned, they should set an example and follow all transportation guidelines to the letter. In this instance, going 56 in a 25, he was going way too fast.

 

Thoughts?

 

Funny, I have a CDL from a job I held over ten years ago and as such I am subject to being charged with a DUI if I blow ½ of the legal limit regardless of whether or not I am actually driving a commercial vehicle or working. Go figure.

while I agree with everything said here.. who is at greater fault.. the LEO who has been conditioned to find this behavior acceptable.. or the government that allows it.. to put it simply.. if the government did not allow this BS to go on.. IT WOULDN'T..

Or if the officer had proper moral standards, he would know that driving 56 in a 30 just because you are in a police cruiser while off duty is WRONG. There were PLENTY of things that I could get away with at every job I have had...but I didnt do them because I knew it was WRONG.