Off Duty Officer Killed

[AZKomet]

Maybe we need to get our legislators and our motorcycle organizations to work together to get DUI death classified as "murder" with appropriate sentencing. A dead victim is stil a dead victim with family that will miss him forever. The driver needs to be held fully accountable and responsible for the outcome of his acts.

 

 

Most states do have convictions of DUI that go to trial. However, the reason that most acquitals take place is the jury system and not the LEO and the subsequent investigation. Most juries have trouble convicting people believe it or not. 28 years I have been involved with the CJ system and I am amazed at the lack of convictions on rock solid cases to include traditional homicide. I spent years in the Homicide division and was fortunate not to loose any of my cases....one such case I helped with had a movie made about it and it was less than accurate. The creep was given the needle about a month ago. But back to juries, they are not the responsible group you think. I would poll them after an acquital and one main reason is the "CSI Effect". I recently finished a book on the topic and am in the process of publication. The fact of the matter is that less than 10 % of cases go to trial. This one will no doubt be plead out to a lesser crime or to the minimum sentencing. And most judges go by the probation officer's recommedations alone. Mitigation and aggravation comes into play upon sentencing a suspect. So sorry for the hijack but the fact of the matter is there is more than meets the eye in cases like this. The jerk is probably guitly. He will no doubt get a mouthpiece that will convolute and distort the truth beyond imagination. It is our CJ system...let it do its job and we shall see what happens. The victim in this case did not deserve to die. It is an eye opener to the rest of us of the inherent dangers of riding.

[velomoto]

well just add one more illegal to the prison system. now it stands at 500,001 and thats the truth!!!!!!

Taters, it's awesome to see SOMEONE knows how many illegals are in US prisons. When I searched for that answer all I found were old, and much lower stat's, or quotes from various government people who claimed it would be "impossible" to know for sure. BTW, the criminal rate I keep coming across for illegal immigrants is is roughly 2 times (yes, twice) that of Americans (including legal immigrants)... That would be 1 in 100 for "illegals" and 1 in 200 for "legals". As for the accuracy of all these statistics, I'd defer that to the late Mark Twain.

[codougd]

well just add one more illegal to the prison system. now it stands at 500,001 and thats the truth!!!!!!

Taters, it's awesome to see SOMEONE knows how many illegals are in US prisons. When I searched for that answer all I found were old, and much lower stat's, or quotes from various government people who claimed it would be "impossible" to know for sure. BTW, the criminal rate I keep coming across for illegal immigrants is is roughly 2 times (yes, twice) that of Americans (including legal immigrants)... That would be 1 in 100 for "illegals" and 1 in 200 for "legals". As for the accuracy of all these statistics, I'd defer that to the late Mark Twain.

Twain had a few things to say about politicians and legislators as well: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar

[Twisties]

But back to juries, they are not the responsible group you think. I would poll them after an acquital and one main reason is the "CSI Effect".

 

I don't watch much TV. I know it's a crime show, but what's a CSI Effect?

 

He will no doubt get a mouthpiece that will convolute and distort the truth beyond imagination.

 

Undoubtedly, that is for the jury to decide. I for one am glad that the jury gets to hear two points of view.

 

28 years I have been involved with the CJ system and I am amazed at the lack of convictions on rock solid cases to include traditional homicide.

 

Well, given all the convictions that have been overturned on DNA evidence, it certainly seems like a good thing that juries are hard. It appears that far too many juries have been swayed by circumstantial and other incomplete or soft evidence. I at least always thought that being hard is what juries are for. Seems to me the prosecution holds all the cards, and all that stands between them and an out of control justice system is an informed educated jury. Unfortunately in all too many cases that small degree of protection seems to have failed. In any event, I guess the jury gets to decide if the case is rock solid, not you.

 

The creep was given the needle about a month ago.

 

I really think gloating about this is inappropriate. No matter how you feel about the death penalty, it is a sad, tragic, state of affairs when we reach the point of considering it. If this outcome is to have any credibility at all it must be exercised with the utmost of detachment and professionalism. There shouldn't be any room for gloating at any level in the CJ system. Indeed, application of the death penalty can only be viewed as an extreme, inexcusable failure of the CJ system. You should be in tears.

[AZKomet]

But back to juries, they are not the responsible group you think. I would poll them after an acquital and one main reason is the "CSI Effect".

 

I don't watch much TV. I know it's a crime show, but what's a CSI Effect?

 

He will no doubt get a mouthpiece that will convolute and distort the truth beyond imagination.

 

Undoubtedly, that is for the jury to decide. I for one am glad that the jury gets to hear two points of view.

 

28 years I have been involved with the CJ system and I am amazed at the lack of convictions on rock solid cases to include traditional homicide.

 

Well, given all the convictions that have been overturned on DNA evidence, it certainly seems like a good thing that juries are hard. It appears that far too many juries have been swayed by circumstantial and other incomplete or soft evidence. I at least always thought that being hard is what juries are for. Seems to me the prosecution holds all the cards, and all that stands between them and an out of control justice system is an informed educated jury. Unfortunately in all too many cases that small degree of protection seems to have failed. In any event, I guess the jury gets to decide if the case is rock solid, not you.

 

The creep was given the needle about a month ago.

 

I really think gloating about this is inappropriate. No matter how you feel about the death penalty, it is a sad, tragic, state of affairs when we reach the point of considering it. If this outcome is to have any credibility at all it must be exercised with the utmost of detachment and professionalism. There shouldn't be any room for gloating at any level in the CJ system. Indeed, application of the death penalty can only be viewed as an extreme, inexcusable failure of the CJ system. You should be in tears.

 

 

Let the games begin!!!!

Not hardly...and gloating? I suppose that if one raped your wife or daughter in front of you while bound and helpless you would turn the other cheek. Right? Once done he kills them and I am suppose to feel something for this type of person?? Not hardly..the system is what it is. I did not devise it or the like. I do enjoy being an advocate for the dead victims that I have brought resolve. And the DNA story you mention is not as quite telling as you want others to believe. There are many reasons for the innocence factor to be brought out b/c of DNA. And don't think that I am some uneducated smoe that has not a clue. I have a degree in paramedicine, A BSOECJ and a Master of Forensic Med. and working on a PhD.

And the only thing that is inappropriate here is you telling me how I should feel about a murderer who would have killed more and more people if he was not stopped. Ever heard of Ed Gein, how about Ted Bundy? Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killer? How about Jack the Ripper..not nice folks and do not belong on the planet. So don't pretend you know what is about...I have no idea how to make polymers, paint, make up, superglue or any other chemist concoction...so don't tell me that you know about law enforcement or any thing remotely related to the field. I can with confidence say that I have not put anyone on death row or prison that did not belong there. Pi$$ing match aside, you do what you are trained in and I will do what I do...Don't you have a beaker to heat up or something????

[Twisties]

But back to juries, they are not the responsible group you think. I would poll them after an acquital and one main reason is the "CSI Effect".

 

I don't watch much TV. I know it's a crime show, but what's a CSI Effect?

 

He will no doubt get a mouthpiece that will convolute and distort the truth beyond imagination.

 

Undoubtedly, that is for the jury to decide. I for one am glad that the jury gets to hear two points of view.

 

28 years I have been involved with the CJ system and I am amazed at the lack of convictions on rock solid cases to include traditional homicide.

 

Well, given all the convictions that have been overturned on DNA evidence, it certainly seems like a good thing that juries are hard. It appears that far too many juries have been swayed by circumstantial and other incomplete or soft evidence. I at least always thought that being hard is what juries are for. Seems to me the prosecution holds all the cards, and all that stands between them and an out of control justice system is an informed educated jury. Unfortunately in all too many cases that small degree of protection seems to have failed. In any event, I guess the jury gets to decide if the case is rock solid, not you.

 

The creep was given the needle about a month ago.

 

I really think gloating about this is inappropriate. No matter how you feel about the death penalty, it is a sad, tragic, state of affairs when we reach the point of considering it. If this outcome is to have any credibility at all it must be exercised with the utmost of detachment and professionalism. There shouldn't be any room for gloating at any level in the CJ system. Indeed, application of the death penalty can only be viewed as an extreme, inexcusable failure of the CJ system. You should be in tears.

 

 

Let the games begin!!!!

Not hardly...and gloating? I suppose that if one raped your wife or daughter in front of you while bound and helpless you would turn the other cheek. Right? Once done he kills them and I am suppose to feel something for this type of person?? Not hardly..the system is what it is. I did not devise it or the like. I do enjoy being an advocate for the dead victims that I have brought resolve. And the DNA story you mention is not as quite telling as you want others to believe. There are many reasons for the innocence factor to be brought out b/c of DNA. And don't think that I am some uneducated smoe that has not a clue. I have a degree in paramedicine, A BSOECJ and a Master of Forensic Med. and working on a PhD.

And the only thing that is inappropriate here is you telling me how I should feel about a murderer who would have killed more and more people if he was not stopped. Ever heard of Ed Gein, how about Ted Bundy? Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killer? How about Jack the Ripper..not nice folks and do not belong on the planet. So don't pretend you know what is about...I have no idea how to make polymers, paint, make up, superglue or any other chemist concoction...so don't tell me that you know about law enforcement or any thing remotely related to the field. I can with confidence say that I have not put anyone on death row or prison that did not belong there. Pi$$ing match aside, you do what you are trained in and I will do what I do...Don't you have a beaker to heat up or something????

 

You are my worst nightmare.

 

Goodbye.

[ghaverkamp]

You are my worst nightmare.

 

I think if we take a step back, we can surely agree that Dave isn't really your worst nightmare. At its heart, Dave's comments reflect that he would like to see criminals punished and he's in favor of the death penalty. I think you'll find lots of folks here who feel that way. Dave just expressed that exuberantly.

 

Back to the larger topic, numbers I recently reviewed suggested that at the state level, criminal trials have around an 80% conviction rate. With a criminal justice systems designed to err on the site of non-guilt over guilt, that doesn't seem that terribly low to me. One hopes that somewhere in the 20% who reach trial who aren't convicted, there's a fair number who are actually innocent of the charges.

 

(As an addendum: If you do tend to rape mothers and daughters with their husbands bound and watching, only to kill your victims, Dave may clearly be your worst nightmare.)

[IanW]

In Australia random breath testing is allowed (I am not sure if this is the case in the US). Every Police vehicle has the device to measure your blood alcohol content (it used to be .08 in Aus but is down not to .05). If the portable device shows you are over .05 you are taken to the station and tested again on a machine that will stand up in court. In my state there is mandatory sentences for this offence. You can be breath tested at any time. I realise my spelling may differ from yours but I am using the Queens English.

Ian

[PRC]

+5k

 

Glad you were on my side Dave!

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

But back to juries, they are not the responsible group you think. I would poll them after an acquital and one main reason is the "CSI Effect".

 

I don't watch much TV. I know it's a crime show, but what's a CSI Effect?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csi_effect

 

Short version: The assertion is that because of TV shows like CSI, jurists are being led to expect incontrovertible evidence presented quickly and effectively with perfect clarity; in the absence of such perfection, they are reluctant to convict. In effect, the standard of guilt is being raised from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "beyond all doubt."

 

Having said that, I don't think the CSI effect would be a factor in the case that started this thread. It's crystal clear as to what happened, there's not likely to be doubt in any jurist's mind as to what the facts of the case are. My prediction is that we will nonetheless be disappointed with the outcome.

[AZKomet]

While in OZ in 2005 I was with a member of this board who lives there. At dinner and drinks (only one beer for him as he was aware of the RBT) he told me of such a tactic by the police. I was reluctant to believe him and upon leaving we were about 5 miles from the bar and the police pulled him over. The officer came up and said it was time for a random breath test. No asking for ID, insurance or registration. Just blow. Once done it was back on the road as the test was not above limits. It took all of 2 mins.

[AZKomet]

Well said my friend....

[Lawman]

In Australia random breath testing is allowed (I am not sure if this is the case in the US). Every Police vehicle has the device to measure your blood alcohol content (it used to be .08 in Aus but is down not to .05). If the portable device shows you are over .05 you are taken to the station and tested again on a machine that will stand up in court. In my state there is mandatory sentences for this offence. You can be breath tested at any time. I realise my spelling may differ from yours but I am using the Queens English.

Ian

 

In the U.S., especially in the rural areas, it is not uncommon to have the county sheriff,district attorney, or county judge show up on the scene where an officer has stopped someone for D.U.I. and ask the officer to allow someone to take the drunk home in lieu of arresting them..After 32 years in street level police work I'm sick of it..Not sick of dealing with the turds...That doesn't bother me..Sick of dealing with this system and it's the people that make the system...Australia is sounding pretty good to me right now..

[RPG]

Put me in the camp with those that think DUI is bad, but can't see how IL status has anything to do with it. Show me some stats that IL's are any different in this respect than L's. Until then that issue is just more Rush/Hannity clabbertrap.

 

agreed except for one thing. They shouldn't be in this country in the first place. Illegal Alien means Illegally in this country. I'm just waiting for the kinder, gentler version of this term to come out in the next few years. Economically Displaced Citizen or Dis-enfranchised Temporary Citizen to name a few.

 

I'm sure our Politician's won't disappoint. In the meantime this Police Officer lies dead in the ground. Despite all the debate, it couldn't have happened if the guy wasn't in the country.

 

RPG

[Quinn]

Put me in the camp with those that think DUI is bad, but can't see how IL status has anything to do with it. Show me some stats that IL's are any different in this respect than L's. Until then that issue is just more Rush/Hannity clabbertrap.

 

agreed except for one thing. They shouldn't be in this country in the first place. Illegal Alien means Illegally in this country. I'm just waiting for the kinder, gentler version of this term to come out in the next few years. Economically Displaced Citizen or Dis-enfranchised Temporary Citizen to name a few.

 

I'm sure our Politician's won't disappoint. In the meantime this Police Officer lies dead in the ground. Despite all the debate, it couldn't have happened if the guy wasn't in the country.

 

RPG

 

 

The term is "undocumented workers"

[Twisties]

You are my worst nightmare.

 

I think if we take a step back, we can surely agree that Dave isn't really your worst nightmare. At its heart, Dave's comments reflect that he would like to see criminals punished and he's in favor of the death penalty. I think you'll find lots of folks here who feel that way. Dave just expressed that exuberantly.

 

Back to the larger topic, numbers I recently reviewed suggested that at the state level, criminal trials have around an 80% conviction rate. With a criminal justice systems designed to err on the site of non-guilt over guilt, that doesn't seem that terribly low to me. One hopes that somewhere in the 20% who reach trial who aren't convicted, there's a fair number who are actually innocent of the charges.

 

(As an addendum: If you do tend to rape mothers and daughters with their husbands bound and watching, only to kill your victims, Dave may clearly be your worst nightmare.)

 

Greg,

 

I'm taking your advice and taking a step a back before I answer. I'll post in a day or two.

 

Jan

[SWB]

Put me in the camp with those that think DUI is bad, but can't see how IL status has anything to do with it. Show me some stats that IL's are any different in this respect than L's. Until then that issue is just more Rush/Hannity clabbertrap.

 

agreed except for one thing. They shouldn't be in this country in the first place. Illegal Alien means Illegally in this country. I'm just waiting for the kinder, gentler version of this term to come out in the next few years. Economically Displaced Citizen or Dis-enfranchised Temporary Citizen to name a few.

 

I'm sure our Politician's won't disappoint. In the meantime this Police Officer lies dead in the ground. Despite all the debate, it couldn't have happened if the guy wasn't in the country.

 

RPG

 

 

The term is "undocumented workers"

 

Yep, I was "trained right" (or maybe trained left-wing) in college in the late 70's, and always called illegal aliens "undocumented workers".

 

But after states like California started giving them licenses and other faux-legal documentation, and Mexico itself started issuing ID cards for use in the USA, I decided that "undocumented" no longer applies.

 

I mean, I guess we could call these folks "goat-cheese-Martians" too, or honorary-non-citizen-interlopers, but "Illegal" and "alien" applies precisely.

[Twisties]

Some quotes that need to be addressed as to accuracy. I am not slamming or flaming the author and my comments should not be taken as such:

 

Cars can be equipped so that they won't start if the driver is over the limit. I see these as solutions.

 

These are called ignition interlock devices. We have them here in Fl. They are somewhat effective, however the offender can have someone else blow into the device to get the car to run. Yes the device can be programed to shut the car down at a certain time after the initial blow to ensure sobriety, however in my 20 years on the job, I have found it be successful only with the people who want to obey the law. The cost of the device is prohibitive to being used in every car made.

 

How do you tell when a breathalyzer can be tripped by mouthwash, when there is alcohol in cough medicine, etc?

 

The intoxilyzers are not fooled by mouthwash or the like. The amount of alcohol in mouthwash is so small that one would have to drink suck a massive quantity to even register a reading that it would make one sick from the other additives in the mouthwash. As for cough meds, same deal.

 

As a DUI enforcement officer, I have seen way to much of this junk. This cat made a decision to drink to excess. He planned to get FUBAR and as a result, killed an innocent person. Whats the difference between that and some fool drinkiong to excess and pulling a gun and killing a 5 year old in a grocery store that wouldn't shut up? There's still a weapon involved and there's still a dead person. Some would argue intent, I say bull. He knew he shouldn't have been driving, but did.

 

Have great weekend ride safe!

 

Sir, I was responding to the proposal ZERO alcohol be allowed when driving. I responded that it was impractical for the reasons I cited. These reasons did not apply to attempting to measure BAC by breath at 0.08%, but apply to concept of no alcohol... an entirely different matter I assure you. If your tolerance is 0, then you can't use breath, regardless of the measurement device. See this Linky

 

My suggestion to make interlocks and personal breath testers more available related to the current 0.08 standard. I agree completely that these devices are not going to stop the hard core drinker/drivers about whom you write. I imagine however that many social drinkers, such as myself would love a way to be sure we're ok to drive. Right now we have no way to know, and if we're 0.081 one time on New Year's Eve, we're in the same boat as someone at 0.16. I think an accurate way to tell would put an end to a lot of that, not all, but a lot. So yes, I am talking about the overwhelming majority of drinkers who want to obey the law.

 

I think we agree more than we disagree, really.

 

Best to you,

 

Jan

[Twisties]

By way of answering Greg, who would like me to agree that AZKomet is not really my worst nightmare:

 

But back to juries, they are not the responsible group you think. I would poll them after an acquital and one main reason is the "CSI Effect".

 

I don't watch much TV. I know it's a crime show, but what's a CSI Effect?

 

He will no doubt get a mouthpiece that will convolute and distort the truth beyond imagination.

 

Undoubtedly, that is for the jury to decide. I for one am glad that the jury gets to hear two points of view.

 

28 years I have been involved with the CJ system and I am amazed at the lack of convictions on rock solid cases to include traditional homicide.

 

Well, given all the convictions that have been overturned on DNA evidence, it certainly seems like a good thing that juries are hard. It appears that far too many juries have been swayed by circumstantial and other incomplete or soft evidence. I at least always thought that being hard is what juries are for. Seems to me the prosecution holds all the cards, and all that stands between them and an out of control justice system is an informed educated jury. Unfortunately in all too many cases that small degree of protection seems to have failed. In any event, I guess the jury gets to decide if the case is rock solid, not you.

 

The creep was given the needle about a month ago.

 

I really think gloating about this is inappropriate. No matter how you feel about the death penalty, it is a sad, tragic, state of affairs when we reach the point of considering it. If this outcome is to have any credibility at all it must be exercised with the utmost of detachment and professionalism. There shouldn't be any room for gloating at any level in the CJ system. Indeed, application of the death penalty can only be viewed as an extreme, inexcusable failure of the CJ system. You should be in tears.

 

 

Let the games begin!!!!

Not hardly...and gloating? I suppose that if one raped your wife or daughter in front of you while bound and helpless you would turn the other cheek. Right? Once done he kills them and I am suppose to feel something for this type of person?? Not hardly..the system is what it is. I did not devise it or the like. I do enjoy being an advocate for the dead victims that I have brought resolve. And the DNA story you mention is not as quite telling as you want others to believe. There are many reasons for the innocence factor to be brought out b/c of DNA. And don't think that I am some uneducated smoe that has not a clue. I have a degree in paramedicine, A BSOECJ and a Master of Forensic Med. and working on a PhD.

And the only thing that is inappropriate here is you telling me how I should feel about a murderer who would have killed more and more people if he was not stopped. Ever heard of Ed Gein, how about Ted Bundy? Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killer? How about Jack the Ripper..not nice folks and do not belong on the planet. So don't pretend you know what is about...I have no idea how to make polymers, paint, make up, superglue or any other chemist concoction...so don't tell me that you know about law enforcement or any thing remotely related to the field. I can with confidence say that I have not put anyone on death row or prison that did not belong there. Pi$$ing match aside, you do what you are trained in and I will do what I do...Don't you have a beaker to heat up or something????

 

Not hardly...and gloating? I suppose that if one raped your wife or daughter in front of you while bound and helpless you would turn the other cheek. Right?

 

Now really, I say that the death penalty should be dignified and professional and he, a Ph.D, candidate in CJ, a murder expert, and book author on juries equates that to turning the other cheek to murderers and letting them loose on the street to kill again. How am I supposed to react when he has no credibility at all? Does he feel that the behavior at Saddam's hanging was just fine... seems so. Does he feel any need to debate square up, on the issue as presented, no he takes wild leaps, unsupported by the evidence, and tries to turn me into a idiot. This from a person entrusted to professionally investigate crime... and you expect me to trust him to be fair?

 

Not hardly..the system is what it is. I did not devise it or the like. I do enjoy being an advocate for the dead victims that I have brought resolve.

 

I didn't ask him to like it. I think it stinks too. But we all need to respect it. He is treating it with utter disdain. He, with all his knowledge of the resources of the State, their professional investigators, their professional prosecutors, their access to expensive experts and laboratories thinks that the accused should not be allowed professional representation to assist in navigating the system, understanding the law, and presenting their point of view? I don't know, maybe that isn't what he means by

a mouthpiece that will convolute and distort the truth beyond imagination.

Maybe I'm over interpreting, but that is how sounds to me. This speaks of an incredible arrogance that I find very disturbing in one sworn to uphold the law. Essentially, I understand it to mean that AZKomet thinks it should all be up to the investigator, and no one should question his findings. I would at least like to see an investigator that approaches his work with the scientific method in mind and AZKomet has convinced me he is incapable of that.

 

And don't think that I am some uneducated smoe that has not a clue. I have a degree in paramedicine, A BSOECJ and a Master of Forensic Med. and working on a PhD.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz I would have hoped then he had developed some nuanced understanding of the issues, a degree of balance in his point of view, an ability to present both sides and interpret them to reach a conclusion. Seems all that education went straight over his head.

 

Greg, going back to his earlier post, where he first gloats over getting a convict killed, can you honestly expect me to believe that someone with his credentials and experience didn't understand the public policy issues surrounding the death penalty? Didn't know precisely how offensive a segment of society would find that remark? Didn't make the comment with intent of baiting a response such as mine? How you can ascribe even the slightest credibility to this person is entirely beyond me.

 

And the only thing that is inappropriate here is you telling me how I should feel about a murderer who would have killed more and more people if he was not stopped. Ever heard of Ed Gein, how about Ted Bundy? Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killer? How about Jack the Ripper..not nice folks and do not belong on the planet. So don't pretend you know what is about...I have no idea how to make polymers, paint, make up, superglue or any other chemist concoction...so don't tell me that you know about law enforcement or any thing remotely related to the field.

 

Should I tell him that he isn't qualified to have an opinion on Bhopal because he isn't a chemist? What about Chernobyl, is he to have no opinion on that since he isn't a physicist. Do we get to have an opinion on Iraq if we aren't soldiers?

 

Greg, how am I supposed to feel about an investigator that feels the public can have no policy interest in his work, that juries are corrupt, and that the accused don't deserve a defense? Really, is this man interested in justice as you believe, or is he determined to go after the first person he suspects? Incidentally, I have no idea how to make any of those chemical things either, I do environmental investigation and remediation, and no longer even work in a lab. I suspect that in some ways AZKomet's job and mine are very similar.

 

As for DNA analysis. See here: DNA Exonerations and reasons for systemic false conviction

 

Bottom line Greg, yeah, AZKomet is my worst nightmare.

[AZKomet]

The little I know of you I think that you are off base and still have no idea what things are about. And the Bhopal Nuke accident is one I know of but certainly not an expert. Until one KNOWS the facts they cannot have an opinion on the incident. And yes, I was a soldier...so again...talking about something you know nothing about is exactly why you do not belong on a jury.

[ghaverkamp]

Bottom line Greg, yeah, AZKomet is my worst nightmare.

 

Okay.

[pokorskij]

Latest Update.

 

NEW! Driver who killed cop was drunk, test shows

 

 

Web-posted Sep 7, 2007

 

 

By STEPHEN FRYE

Of The Oakland Press

 

INDEPENDENCE TWP. - An illegal immigrant accused of running over and killing an off-duty Flint police officer in Independence Township had a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit, blood test results showed.

Advertisement

 

 

His attorney said Friday that second-degree murder is not an appropriate charge for the Mexican national, Ramon Felix Pineda, who has lived in the United States for more than a decade.

 

Attorneys on both sides stipulated to the blood results Friday morning as the preliminary examination for Pineda, 25, was adjourned until Sept. 28 by 52nd-2nd District Judge Kelley Kostin at the request of the defense.

 

Pineda, of Clarkston, is charged with second-degree murder in the Aug. 26 crash that killed Flint police Officer Vincent Owen D'Anna, 26, who died the following morning at Genysis Health Park in Grand Blanc.

 

Contact staff writer Stephen Frye at (248) 745-4634 or steve.frye@oakpress.com.

For more information on this story see tomorrow's print edition of The Oakland Press or click here to go to our e-paper edition.

[Shaman97]

And the Bhopal Nuke accident is one I know of but certainly not an expert.

 

Bhopal was a chemical incident...not nuke.

[AZKomet]

I knew that...I was making a point. I was gonna be a smarta$$ and say Chernobyl was a chemical accident too.