Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/13/2006 5:40:29 PM EST
Ugh.

www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/NEWS01/61013020

COLUMBUS (AP) — A trooper was legally drunk when the patrol car he was driving crashed with a pickup, killing himself, another trooper and the other driver, the Ohio State Highway Patrol said Friday.

A blood test on trooper Joshua Risner showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent, the level considered drunk under Ohio law, the patrol said.

Neither Risner’s passenger, trooper Sgt. Dale Holcomb, nor the driver of the pickup, Lori Smith, had been drinking before the crash last month near Gallipolis in southeast Ohio, the patrol said at a news conference.

“Putting it mildly, this is a devastating event to the Highway Patrol, to law enforcement,” spokesman Lt. Col. William Costas said.

Risner was driving 60 to 71 miles per hour with the car’s emergency lights and siren activated when he lost control and spun into the opposite lane, the patrol’s investigation found.

The speed limits drops from 55 to 40 mph in that area of the road, the patrol said.

The patrol car hit the pickup truck driven by Smith, who was traveling 10 to 20 miles per hour and was moving over to the right as the patrol car approached.

Risner, near the end of his shift, had just picked up Holcomb at his house. Holcomb was beginning his shift, the release said.

Patrol investigators believe the troopers were on their way to help an off-duty trooper headed to a local hospital with a sick baby. The patrol had previously determined the troopers hadn’t been dispatched to any emergency calls.

Investigators said both vehicles were burned in a fire fed by gasoline from the patrol car’s ruptured tank.

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.

The patrol found out about Risner’s blood-alcohol level Friday. Costas said an earlier test of blood drawn from Risner’s neck was negative. The test results released Friday were from blood drawn deeper inside the body.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:44:40 PM EST
I don't think that alcohol caused the crash. You can have two beers (or less) and shoot over .08% in BAC.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:44:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:47:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2006 5:48:41 PM EST by WildBoar]
legally drunk as opposed to illegally drunk?

Oh and in before some butwipe says "Good the cop deserved it" and in before some JBT defends the cops actions.

and what TBK said
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:48:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:
Ugh.

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.

The patrol found out about Risner’s blood-alcohol level Friday. Costas said an earlier test of blood drawn from Risner’s neck was negative. The test results released Friday were from blood drawn deeper inside the body.


So how does one test show .00 and the other show .08?

If the cops arrested a person for DUI, and you were on the Jury, and those 2 test results were presented, would you find the person guilty, or innocent?

I think the crash suggests DUI. But why the differences in the test results? Were the bodies burned? Were the samples drawn at the same time, from different areas? etc. etc.

Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:49:31 PM EST
Whoo boy.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:49:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
I don't think that alcohol caused the crash. You can have two beers (or less) and shoot over .08% in BAC.


Driving too fast in horrible conditions caused the crash, I think. The road was wet, it was rainy as hell that night. I've followed many many troopers hauling ass, at night, with no emergency lights in conditions that bad, wondering when someone was going to buy it from that kind of shit. No excuse for that, IMHO...this wasn't a high speed chase, and the trooper with a sick baby doesn't warrant reckless driving.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:50:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
But why the differences in the test results? Were the bodies burned? Were the samples drawn at the same time, from different areas? etc. etc.



The bodies were severely burnt....hence the second deep tissue test.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:57:54 PM EST

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.


I'm kinda' surprised some play hasn't been attached to her because of this.

Interestingly I even know a Lori Smith that, back then, liked to light one up occasionally. Her pos husband prefered a bit more often than "occasionally." But I haven't seen her in 20 yrs or so. Probably not the same gal.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:59:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
But why the differences in the test results? Were the bodies burned? Were the samples drawn at the same time, from different areas? etc. etc.



The bodies were severely burnt....hence the second deep tissue test.


+1 He's right, OLY-M4gery. When I did a rotation with a medical examiner, she mentioned that in severely burned bodies the alcohol can literally be boiled off. Hence the need to obtain blood samples as far away from the surface of the body as possible when testing for alcohol or other volatile substance.

Link Posted: 10/13/2006 5:59:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.


I'm kinda' surprised some play hasn't been attached to her because of this.

Interestingly I even know a Lori Smith that, back then, liked to light one up occasionally. Her pos husband prefered a bit more often than "occasionally." But I haven't seen her in 20 yrs or so. Probably not the same gal.


Lori Smith, from this incident, was 32.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:01:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
But why the differences in the test results? Were the bodies burned? Were the samples drawn at the same time, from different areas? etc. etc.



The bodies were severely burnt....hence the second deep tissue test.


+1 He's right, OLY-M4gery. When I did a rotation with a medical examiner, she mentioned that in severely burned bodies the alcohol can literally be boiled off. Hence the need to obtain blood samples as far away from the surface of the body as possible when testing for alcohol or other volatile substance.



Actually, any fluid in the body can be boiled off.

We have gotten some pretty high BAC results from bodies from crashes that resulted in fires.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:01:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.


I'm kinda' surprised some play hasn't been attached to her because of this.

Interestingly I even know a Lori Smith that, back then, liked to light one up occasionally. Her pos husband prefered a bit more often than "occasionally." But I haven't seen her in 20 yrs or so. Probably not the same gal.


Lori Smith, from this incident, was 32.


Tonight they're saying she had drugs in her system.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:03:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
I don't think that alcohol caused the crash. You can have two beers (or less) and shoot over .08% in BAC.


Agreed .08 ain't much, but why is a Trooper whos job is to protect and serve, throwing back beers during his tax payer paid shift?
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:03:47 PM EST
Since Trooper Risner was near the end of his shift, he must have been drinking on the job.

Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:08:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chokey:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.


I'm kinda' surprised some play hasn't been attached to her because of this.

Interestingly I even know a Lori Smith that, back then, liked to light one up occasionally. Her pos husband prefered a bit more often than "occasionally." But I haven't seen her in 20 yrs or so. Probably not the same gal.


Lori Smith, from this incident, was 32.


Tonight they're saying she had drugs in her system.


Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:13:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.


I'm kinda' surprised some play hasn't been attached to her because of this.

Interestingly I even know a Lori Smith that, back then, liked to light one up occasionally. Her pos husband prefered a bit more often than "occasionally." But I haven't seen her in 20 yrs or so. Probably not the same gal.


Lori Smith, from this incident, was 32.


Thanks OLY. The Lori I know would now be more like 44.

Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:23:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
I don't think that alcohol caused the crash. You can have two beers (or less) and shoot over .08% in BAC.


The event of that happening is highly unlikely. it all depends on an individuals weight their tolerance level. I weigh 220, and for me to blow over .08 it would take roughly 6 beers in an hour.

You can blow below .08 and fail the SFST and be arrested for OVI. Atleast in ohio.....
all you have to do is show impairment of the operator of the motor vehicle.
Link Posted: 10/13/2006 6:28:16 PM EST
You have to remember these were burned victims. Alcohol evaporates / boils ata lower temp. That is why the blood drawn from his heart showed the alcohol. It may have been higher than was measured before the fire too.

If you work in the emergency fields you do not get to drink eight hours before shift. Period. End of story, and for them to test the victims blood and publish its content is just mud slinging.

I hope the victims of this one drunk cop's selfishness seek damages and win. There is NO excuse when it comes to police or security work.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:05:35 AM EST
I saw this on GlockTalk, there isn't a link listed with it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The union that represents highway patrol troopers is trying to salvage the reputation of one of its own.

Sgt. Dale R. Holcomb, 45, and Trooper Joshua P. Risner, 29, died on Sept. 28 when their vehicle collided with a pickup and caught fire. Last week, the Ohio State Highway Patrol said Risner had alcohol in his system at the time of the autopsy, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.

NBC 4 received an e-mail containing a union document regarding the incident.

The union said its investigation has already revealed that Risner, a seven-year veteran with the patrol, had not ingested any alcohol prior to going on duty or while on the clock.

The union disputed the blood-alcohol level recorded by the coroner, which is why it said it will hire an independent toxicologist to look at the blood-alcohol test results.

Coroner Dr. Dan Whitely said that according to an autopsy conducted two days after the crash, Risner's blood-alcohol content level was 0.08, which is the legal driving limit in Ohio.

Investigators determined that the patrol cruiser, driven by Risner, was traveling between 60 and 71 mph with its emergency lights and siren activated.

Officials said the driver lost control, spun into the westbound lane and struck a Chevrolet Silverado being driven by 32-year-old Lori Smith. Smith was traveling between 10 and 20 mph and moving to the right of the approach of the cruiser.

Smith, of Vinton, Ohio, also died.

The attorney for the union said the patrol has not conducted a thorough investigation.

"We are actually doing an investigation, and we will prove Joshua Risner did not ingest alcohol the night before or while on duty prior to dying at 6 a.m.," said Herschel Sigall, attorney for the Ohio State Troopers Association.

Sigall said he has a receipt proving that Risner went out to dinner with his wife four hours before his shift and that the couple drank only soda with their meal.

Sigall said he talked with other troopers and sheriff's deputies from southern Ohio who said they observed nothing in Risner's conduct or demeanor that would lead them to believe he had been drinking.

Sigall also said that at 2:25 a.m., Risner went to a convenience store where he bought a sandwich and a soda.

"The only one being thrown under the bus who was the hero last week, now the villain, (is) Josh Risner," Sigall said.

Sigall said alcohol may have been in Risner's system because the coroner took a deep-tissue sample more than two days after the crash. Sigall said alcohol is typically present after decomposition.

The union is also upset that Risner's widow and children were told on Tuesday that the workers' compensation company is contesting their right to survivors' benefits.

OSP officials declined to comment on the union findings, saying the patrol is conducting its own investigation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:12:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:19:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2006 8:28:19 AM EST by Johninaustin]
They waited TWO DAYS to do an autopsy? Blood samples for alcohol are not considered viable if 12 hours has elapsed after death according to the pathologists we have.

If he WAS drinking on the job you won't find any defenders amongst the officers here.

Since the cars burned, I wonder if it was a Crown Vic or the other driver's vehicle?

This part REALLY pisses me off.

The union is also upset that Risner's widow and children were told on Tuesday that the workers' compensation company is contesting their right to survivors' benefits

We had a city workers fall into a commercial trash compactor, roll a backhoe, and get electrocuted while working on a power box. (All drunk off their ass) They didn't contest anything.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:23:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
They waited TWO DAYS to do an autopsy? Blood samples for alcohol are not considered viable if 12 hours has elapsed after death according to the pathologists we have.

If he WAS drinking on the job you won't find any defenders amongst the officers here.

Since the cars burned, I wonder if it was a Crown Vic or the other driver's vehicle?


Both cars burned, with signifigant damage to the rear of the CVPI.

Didn't look like much collision damage to the truck invovled.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:32:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
They waited TWO DAYS to do an autopsy? Blood samples for alcohol are not considered viable if 12 hours has elapsed after death according to the pathologists we have.

If he WAS drinking on the job you won't find any defenders amongst the officers here.

Since the cars burned, I wonder if it was a Crown Vic or the other driver's vehicle?

This part REALLY pisses me off.

The union is also upset that Risner's widow and children were told on Tuesday that the workers' compensation company is contesting their right to survivors' benefits

We had a city workers fall into a commercial trash compactor, roll a backhoe, and get electrocuted while working on a power box. (All drunk off their ass) They didn't contest anything.


It was a Crown Vic. I don't really understand how it happend though.



They hit the woman in an F-150 going backwards really fast.

Both vehicles were badly burnt.

From the looks of the car, even if it hadn't burnt it doesn't look survivable to me.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:37:02 AM EST
If the driver had survived I but his passenger didnt, I wonder if he would have served any jail time? Ted Kennedy was in a similar situation I believe.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:37:28 AM EST
This is just a sad story no matter how you look at it. 3 people are dead.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 8:46:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By NorCal_LEO:

Sigall said alcohol may have been in Risner's system because the coroner took a deep-tissue sample more than two days after the crash. Sigall said alcohol is typically present after decomposition.


Can someone here in the know elaborate on this?


This is the most intriguing part to me as well. Don't we have a coroner gun nut here who can shed some light?
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 9:27:19 AM EST
First let me say that I am an old lab technician, I have performed a lot of blood alcohol tests in my day, but I don't have any first hand knowledge about post mortem forensic blood alcohol testing.

I did a little on-line research and it sounds like the Police Union is on solid ground here. Apparently as the body decomposes, alcohol is produced by bacteria causing the blood alcohol level rise and be unreliable. The best post mortem fluid to test is the vitreous humor (eyeball fluid), but that probably wasn't possible due to the burn injuries. From what little I have read so far, it is premature to say that the officer was drunk or even had been drinking at the time of the accident.

First Link

A similar problem arises when a BAC determination must be made after death (25). The interpretation of alcohol in post mortem specimens is complicated by the presence of alcohol produced by microbial fermentation. This problem is minimized by analysis of the vitreous humor, the liquid that fills the eyeball behind the lens. Because this liquid is reasonably protected from microbial activity and remains relatively constant after death, the alcohol concentration in vitreous humor is used commonly to confirm post mortem BAC determinations (26).

Second Link

Decomposition influences postmortem concentration of alcohol , due to endogenous postmortem production. Alcohol concentrations can reach 1500 mg per liter within a few days, and physical disruption of the body can enhance post-mortem alcohol production. Post-mortem urine and vitreous fluid, however, are largely free of this effect. Blood alcohol (ethanol) concentrations in decomposed bodies can mean drinking during life and/or endogenous production after death. The correct interpretation is important in medico-legal cases.
Link Posted: 10/19/2006 9:30:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Smith’s blood showed a trace of marijuana, but it was below the legal limit for impaired driving and investigators don’t believe she contributed to the crash.


I'm kinda' surprised some play hasn't been attached to her because of this.


Why??
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:31:34 AM EST

www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=223362

New tests conclude trooper was not drinking before fatal crash
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:18 AM

File photo
A state trooper looks at the burned out hulk of a State Highway Patrol cruiser involved in the fatal crash Sept. 28.

Sophisticated testing by a federal laboratory has concluded that State Highway Patrol Trooper Joshua Risner did not drink alcohol prior to a triple-fatality collision near Gallipolis on Sept. 28.

The no-drinking verdict came from tests of samples from Risner's body by the Federal Aviation Administration's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City.


The tests show Risner did not consume any alcohol for at least 16 hours before he died, “effectively eliminating the possibility he could have ingested alcohol,” said Col. Paul D. McClellan, Patrol superintendent.

An autopsy by the Montgomery County coroner's office, based on blood-alcohol content and urine readings of 0.08 and 0.07 percent, respectively, concluded Risner had been drinking. The level at which one is presumed drunk in Ohio is 0.08 percent.

The FAA testing, typically performed on deceased pilots, is not available in Ohio. The testing determines if alcohol was consumed prior to death or created by decomposition, McClellan said.

Risner, 29, and Sgt. Dale Holcomb, 45, were killed when the cruiser driven by Risner apparently hydroplaned on standing water at more than 60 mph and slid out of control.

The cruiser spun backward on Jackson Pike into the path of a pickup truck driven by Lori Smith, 32, of Vinton. She also died in the resulting fire spawned by the cruiser's crushed gas tank.

The Ohio State Troopers Association contended from its investigation that no other officers noticed that Risner was intoxicated and that the alcohol in his body came from decomposition.

“Guess what?” asked Herschel Sigall, the union's lawyer. “He didn't do it. Maybe the healing can start. It restores his reputation and good name.”

Patrol investigators also interviewed more than 24 co-workers and others who worked with Risner on his last shift and none detected any signs he had consumed alcohol, McClellan said.

While criticized by some troopers for releasing the results of Risner's autopsy before more sophisticated alcohol testing was completed, McClellan defended the patrol.

“The Patrol, as an organization, needed to stay forthright and transparent,” he said. “Despite personal feelings, we could not treat this case differently and withhold information from the public we serve.”

Risner apparently was speeding, lights and siren activated, to a Gallipolis hospital to help an off-duty trooper who had taken his non-responsive infant to the emergency room, investigators said.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:38:24 AM EST
1st test was negatve

2nd test was false positive

3rd test was negative


Cop wasn't drunk.

However WTF was he going that fast without calling it in per SOP?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:42:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:52:21 AM EST
It's too bad that people in this thread had to attack an innocent man based on ignorance.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:54:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:02:26 AM EST
Its really a shame that those inaccurate test results wre posted w/o first being triple checked and re-evaluated. these officers are out there doing a thanklesss job and when tragedy occurs they get subjected to this kind of ridicule..its a travesty..and another thing..how many officers have to die before Ford is held responsible and these CV's are removed from service. This fire is NOT a random occurence and its just a shame the men in blue have to use this kind of equipment..im sorry for everyone involved, alll 3 of the deceased are victims b/c as bad as that crash was, ive worked many that were worse and survivable (albeit with major injuries) without the fire.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:04:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Curare:
It's too bad that people in this thread had to attack an innocent man based on ignorance.


Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:05:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrMilitaryPolice:
Its really a shame that those inaccurate test results wre posted w/o first being triple checked and re-evaluated.


When was the last time the press gave the police a fair shake?

They hate cops almost as much as they hate ordinary gun owners.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:09:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.



How do you figure him to be guilty?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:14:33 AM EST
Man I love the circus!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:16:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.



How do you figure him to be guilty?


I don't really care to get into an argument over this...

But, when you kill 2 people it is generally speaking, not considered a good thing. accident or not. Reckless operation, vehicular manslaughter, speeding in unsafe conditions.... this is my take. given the information that has been provided. Fortunately it is not my job to make these calls, and OSP's investigation will be the one that counts... or whomever's if they recuse themselves... dunno their policy.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:18:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 10:20:30 AM EST by DanishM1Garand]

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.



How do you figure him to be guilty?



Excessive speed without calling it in per policy. He was going nowhere in particular or would have called it in as a run, remember there was a second trooper to run the radio.

He more than likely committed 2 counts of manslaughter due to his speed.


ETA: I doubt I would resist the temptation to drive over 100 if I had Lights and a siren either.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:26:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.



How do you figure him to be guilty?



Excessive speed without calling it in per policy. He was going nowhere in particular or would have called it in as a run, remember there was a second trooper to run the radio.

He more than likely committed 2 counts of manslaughter due to his speed.


ETA: I doubt I would resist the temptation to drive over 100 if I had Lights and a siren either.


60-71 according to the reconstruction.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:27:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 10:29:53 AM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.



How do you figure him to be guilty?



Excessive speed without calling it in per policy. He was going nowhere in particular or would have called it in as a run, remember there was a second trooper to run the radio.

He more than likely committed 2 counts of manslaughter due to his speed.


ETA: I doubt I would resist the temptation to drive over 100 if I had Lights and a siren either.


I think you are right. He was going to the hospital to assist a off-duty LEO with his non-responsive baby. I feel for the guy with the baby, and I feel for the troopers that lost their lives and for the families, but the baby was apparently already at the hospital, this cop sounds like he was going to offer morale support to his friend, and got himself killed over it. Was the officer a trained doctor? How was he going to be able to help the baby? He shouldn't have been speeding, obviously he was travelling at an unsafe speed.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:32:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

I think you are right. He was going to the hospital to assist a off-duty LEO with his non-responsive baby. I feel for the guy with the baby, and I feel for the troopers that lost their lives and for the families, but the baby was apparently already at the hospital, this cop sounds like he was going to offer morale support to his friend, and got himself killed over it. He shouldn't have been speeding, obviously he was travelling at an unsafe speed.


I suppose, since there was a Sgt. in the responding vehicle.

He was responding to the hospital, to gatther intitial facts as to whether the use of the OHSP vehicle had been proper. Then he would begin looking at why the child was non-responsive, illness, or abuse. And documenting the condition of the child, and interviewing the parents.

Not to mention possibly looking into whether the Trooper would need time off due to the illness, or other arrangements etc.

But, the possibility of abuse, or neglect, is a criminal matter, a supervisor would surely want to get there to begin an investigation before any evidence is destroyed.

Other than that I'm sure they were just hot rodding for no reason.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:33:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Ummm, he did kill two people... accident, yes. Careless, yes. Innocent, no.



How do you figure him to be guilty?



Excessive speed without calling it in per policy. He was going nowhere in particular or would have called it in as a run, remember there was a second trooper to run the radio.

He more than likely committed 2 counts of manslaughter due to his speed.


ETA: I doubt I would resist the temptation to drive over 100 if I had Lights and a siren either.


60-71 according to the reconstruction.


In a 40

I did not mean to imply he was going 100. I just used that speed as a metaphor.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:38:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

I think you are right. He was going to the hospital to assist a off-duty LEO with his non-responsive baby. I feel for the guy with the baby, and I feel for the troopers that lost their lives and for the families, but the baby was apparently already at the hospital, this cop sounds like he was going to offer morale support to his friend, and got himself killed over it. He shouldn't have been speeding, obviously he was travelling at an unsafe speed.


I suppose, since there was a Sgt. in the responding vehicle.

He was responding to the hospital, to gatther intitial facts as to whether the use of the OHSP vehicle had been proper. Then he would begin looking at why the child was non-responsive, illness, or abuse. And documenting the condition of the child, and interviewing the parents.

Not to mention possibly looking into whether the Trooper would need time off due to the illness, or other arrangements etc.

But, the possibility of abuse, or neglect, is a criminal matter, a supervisor would surely want to get there to begin an investigation before any evidence is destroyed.

Other than that I'm sure they were just hot rodding for no reason.


So that made it necessary to travel at an unsafe speed? It was worth jeopardizing himself, his passenger and whoever his car might hit to get to the hospital to basically write a report? The baby wasn't going anywhere, and any evidence would probably come from the testimony of the attending physician anyways. So why did he need to travel at an unsafe speed, in bad weather, that ultimatly ends up killing three people, inculding himself?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:41:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 10:42:20 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]

Originally Posted By guardian855:

So that made it necessary to travel at an unsafe speed? It was worth jeopardizing himself, his passenger and whoever his car might hit to get to the hospital to basically write a report? The baby wasn't going anywhere, and any evidence would probably come from the testimony of the attending physician anyways. So why did he need to travel at an unsafe speed, in bad weather, that ultimatly ends up killing three people, inculding himself?


About 3X's more people are killed in car crashes than are murdered every year in the US.

Why does any one risk their life driving to work, school, or recreational activities??

Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:44:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 10:47:51 AM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

So that made it necessary to travel at an unsafe speed? It was worth jeopardizing himself, his passenger and whoever his car might hit to get to the hospital to basically write a report? The baby wasn't going anywhere, and any evidence would probably come from the testimony of the attending physician anyways. So why did he need to travel at an unsafe speed, in bad weather, that ultimatly ends up killing three people, inculding himself?


About 3X's more people are killed in car crashes than are murdered every year in the US.

Why does any one risk their life driving to work, school, or recreational activities??



Removed because I don't want to start a pissing match on this poor trooper's tragedy...
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:45:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

I think you are right. He was going to the hospital to assist a off-duty LEO with his non-responsive baby. I feel for the guy with the baby, and I feel for the troopers that lost their lives and for the families, but the baby was apparently already at the hospital, this cop sounds like he was going to offer morale support to his friend, and got himself killed over it. He shouldn't have been speeding, obviously he was travelling at an unsafe speed.


I suppose, since there was a Sgt. in the responding vehicle.

He was responding to the hospital, to gatther intitial facts as to whether the use of the OHSP vehicle had been proper. Then he would begin looking at why the child was non-responsive, illness, or abuse. And documenting the condition of the child, and interviewing the parents.

Not to mention possibly looking into whether the Trooper would need time off due to the illness, or other arrangements etc.

But, the possibility of abuse, or neglect, is a criminal matter, a supervisor would surely want to get there to begin an investigation before any evidence is destroyed.

Other than that I'm sure they were just hot rodding for no reason.


Thats a bit of a reach there. Why on earth would the state patrol be the responding agency for a child abuse case. I think what happened was a tragedy, and there was no intent to cause anyone harm. regardless the trooper was driving to fast for the conditions and paid for it with his life and his Sgt's and an innocent bystander. The only good thing that can come out of this is:
1. A reminder that getting complacent while operating a emergency vehicle is deadly
2. A reminder to always have sit awareness
3. I hope the baby is ok


Pissing on the troopers memory will not bring the pickup driver back. A common thread on arfcom is that peace officers are no different then the anybody else and it's true everyone has lapses in judgement and makes mistakes, some get lucky others do not
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:48:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By vrwc0915:

Thats a bit of a reach there. Why on earth would the state patrol be the responding agency for a child abuse case. I think what happened was a tragedy, and there was no intent to cause anyone harm. regardless the trooper was driving to fast for the conditions and paid for it with his life and his Sgt's and an innocent bystander. The only good thing that can come out of this is:
1. A reminder that getting complacent while operating a emergency vehicle is deadly
2. A reminder to always have sit awareness
3. I hope the baby is ok


Pissing on the troopers memory will not bring the pickup driver back. A common thread on arfcom is that peace officers are no different then the anybody else and it's true everyone has lapses in judgement and makes mistakes, some get lucky others do not


Because the child involved was an off duty Trooper's child...........................
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 10:54:20 AM EST
This thread has had some evolutions. Bashed, innocent and then bashed again.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top