[The Brazil Times nameplate] Overcast ~ 27°F  
High: 38°F ~ Low: 25°F
Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2014

Lambert receives sentence

Thursday, March 6, 2008

The merry-go-round of uncertainty surrounding former Clay County sheriff's deputy Jonathan T. Lambert's legal problems stopped Thursday, when Clay County Circuit Court Judge Joseph Trout accepted a third guilty plea agreement presented in the case and the sentencing recommendation for home detention, but only if Lambert served the maximum amount of assigned time in Clay County.

Facing charges stemming from a 16-hour standoff at his home with law enforcement after a domestic dispute with his girlfriend in September 2006, Lambert pled guilty in February, but was not sentenced.

Trout wanted to take the new plea agreement presented by Special Prosecutor Nina Alexander and Defense Attorney Joseph Etling under advisement before announcing his decision to accept or reject the plea agreement and its sentencing recommendations.

Bad weather conditions forced the scheduled Feb. 22 court date to be rescheduled to Thursday.

The prosecution and defense made formal changes to the third plea agreement at the beginning of Thursday's proceedings, which allowed for a maximum sentence of 180 days in-home detention in both cases to be consecutive and not concurrent as originally provided to the court.

Then defense attorney Joseph Etling attempted to persuade Trout to allow Lambert to move on with his life, which consists mainly of letting him remain gainfully employed at Phoenix Fabricators And Erectors, Inc., Avon, Ind.

Employed as a general laborer at the firm since November 2007, Lambert has to travel around the country at various job sites to help construct water tanks.

A Phoenix representative testified the company has previously cooperated in other court matters for employees and it would be willing to cooperate with Clay Circuit Court's ordered requirements by providing weekly, even daily if necessary, updates about Lambert's whereabouts and job performance. Lambert would also be subject to the company's random five-panel drug testing program.

Although it's not what he dreamed of, Lambert's mother Mary A. Lee said the job was allowing her son a second chance at having a productive life.

Lambert echoed the sentiment when he took the stand.

Although no one has treated him badly since bonding out of jail in December 2006, Lambert said living in Clay County has become very uncomfortable.

"Clay County was home and I was proud to live here. The people in this county were the reason I did the job," Lambert said, and then testified the feeling in the community has changed toward him. "I don't like being here anymore. It just isn't comfortable for me in this community anymore."

At the request of Etling, Clay County Sheriff Mike Heaton provided an affidavit to the court stating the amount of restitution ($1,237.58) provided in the third plea agreement for the cost of sheriff's department equipment damaged during the September 2006 standoff was acceptable.

Special Prosecutor Nina Alexander, Indiana State Police Det. Troy Stanton and the victim, Cayla Hayes-Barker, agreed with the position of the defense and also requested Trout accept the plea agreement and place Lambert on probation that would allow him to keep his new job.

However, Trout, who has felt previous plea agreements were too lenient, sentenced Lambert to the maximum punishment allowable under the current plea agreement, 180 days of electronically monitored in-home detention in each case.

Trout said he was impressed with Lambert's initiative to make his life better, but reminded the court that a person who is found guilty or pleads guilty to charges has to pay their debt to society first.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Whoa such a severe punishment! You would get more than that for a D.U.I. offense. It's nice to see the Clay County justice system goes above and beyond again. Such a disappointment, we wonder why Brazil is the way it is. Look towards are appointed leaders!

-- Posted by SmallTown on Thu, Mar 6, 2008, at 7:46 PM

I GUESS CLAY CO. THROWS THE BURDEN ON THE MOTHER IF THATS WHERE HE WILL BE LIVING,THIS GUY BETTER APPRECIATE THIS BECAUSE I'M SURE HE HELPED PUT PEOPLE AWAY FOR LESS THAN WHAT HE DID AND I MEAN PRISON NOT HOME DETENTION!! I HOPE THIS CHANGES HIM FOR THE GOOD.

-- Posted by brzmm on Thu, Mar 6, 2008, at 8:01 PM

Who needs Brittany Spears?, we have our own soap opera here,what with law enforcement and teachers of the county doing stupid things.

-- Posted by fitch30437 on Thu, Mar 6, 2008, at 8:07 PM

Come on, fitch30437....let's get real! Don't use the terms "law enforcement and teachers of the county" when making comparisons to Britney Spears and soap operas. I've been reading about ONE police officer and ONE teacher of the county. I've also read about MANY citizens such as laborers, moms, dads, church goers, etc doing stupid things over the past few years, so don't be so judgemental and condescending. In all honesty, some of the most stupid things I've read about are the mudslinging comments made on this website!

-- Posted by Bigpappy on Thu, Mar 6, 2008, at 8:46 PM

WOW! this is going to cost Trout a lot of trust by the citizens. I for one will remember it when he is up for re-election

-- Posted by madmom61 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 7:17 AM

this is totally outrageous.i know that if i comitted these crimes i would now be incarerated in one of the states prisons.we wonder why we have a drug epedemic,fights everyday in our schools and on our busses.the good people of brazil,we need to rid ourselves of these lawyers and judges who let these things happen.

-- Posted by WWJDPeople on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 7:27 AM

This verdict is nothing more than a slap on the hand. The citizens of Brazil now know without a shadow of doubt that our court system is fraudulent. The good ole boy network is alive and well and I think it is high time that the voters seek a new system during our next election.

-- Posted by cubbiefan on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 7:51 AM

I am amazed how people are throwing blame on this case. What about the prosecutor, Indiana State Police, the victim. Judge Trout rejected multiple plea agreements for months trying to make sure Lambert was punished for his crimes. He has been beating his head against he wall. The judge does not create the charges, do any of you people know how the judicial system works. Maybe you should educate yourselves on how the system works before you slam it. The prosecutor is the one who charges someone for a crime, and the prosecutor fought for probation. Judge Trout has been fighting for months on this case and then gave him the harshest punishment he could under the plea agreement. If the people in this county lose trust in someone who has worked hard and fought against a prosecutor, victim and detective for punishment, good luck finding someone better.

-- Posted by legal08 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 8:00 AM

What is with everyone being so upset with the Judge? Did you not read the article? EVERYONE wanted a lenient sentence: defense, prosecution, EVEN THE VICTIM. Judge Trout handed down a stiffer sentence than anyone requested, and had already turned down previous agreements with lesser punishment. Come on people - if you want to blame someone for the lenient sentence, blame the Prosecutor, and get off Judge Trout's back. Maybe you should spend a day in the courtroom and see how things really operate before you start throwing around accusations of corruption.

-- Posted by gohoosiers on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 8:10 AM

Like many domestic crimes, it appears that the victim advocated a lessor punishment than Judge Trout imposed. It is clear that the Special Prosecutor advocated a more lenient sentence than Judge Trout imposed.Judge Trout refused an earliar plea agreement that was more lenient than the one he finally accepted. Now explain to me how any criticism of the Judge is warranted......? The only alternative of course was to completely reject the agreement and set the matter for trial with a victim that didn't want him punished and a prosecutor who didn't want him punished. There are very few things that a Judge can take into office more important than his integrity. To suggest that Judge Trout is "corrupt" or "paid off" with the facts cited in the Times article is more than "over the top". It is irresponsible and shameful.

-- Posted by trapperman on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 8:46 AM

I echo the sentiments of those in favor of Judge Trout's ruling. This was a well reasoned ruling given the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. If you have a victim and a Prosecutor who, for whatever reason, do not wish for Lambert to be incarcerated, why not impose the maximum sentence under the terms of the plea agreement. If this were to go to trial, given that the "star witness" feels the way that she does, the County would risk having Lambert walk without recourse. The Judge is being as harsh on him as possible. I would refer the Forum to Article I section 18 of the Indiana Constitution which states in part that "The penal code shall be founded on the principals of reformation and not vindictive justice." Judge Trout is imposing the maximum sentence under the plea agreement, ensuring that Lambert is punished even if the Prosecutor does not feel the same, and most of all, protecting the people that elected him while at the same time, staying true to the spirit of the law and the very text of the Indiana Constitution. That is what a Judge should do, and that is why Judge Trout is a great one.

-- Posted by Eddie on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:25 AM

I echo the sentiments of those in favor of Judge Trout's ruling. This was a well reasoned ruling given the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. If you have a victim and a Prosecutor who, for whatever reason, do not wish for Lambert to be incarcerated, why not impose the maximum sentence under the terms of the plea agreement. If this were to go to trial, given that the "star witness" feels the way that she does, the County would risk having Lambert walk without recourse. The Judge is being as harsh on him as possible. I would refer the Forum to Article I section 18 of the Indiana Constitution which states in part that "The penal code shall be founded on the principals of reformation and not vindictive justice." Judge Trout is imposing the maximum sentence under the plea agreement, ensuring that Lambert is punished even if the Prosecutor does not feel the same, and most of all, protecting the people that elected him while at the same time, staying true to the spirit of the law and the very text of the Indiana Constitution. That is what a Judge should do, and that is why Judge Trout is a great one.

-- Posted by Eddie on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:26 AM

I echo the sentiments of those in favor of Judge Trout's ruling. This was a well reasoned ruling given the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. If you have a victim and a Prosecutor who, for whatever reason, do not wish for Lambert to be incarcerated, why not impose the maximum sentence under the terms of the plea agreement. If this were to go to trial, given that the "star witness" feels the way that she does, the County would risk having Lambert walk without recourse. The Judge is being as harsh on him as possible. I would refer the Forum to Article I section 18 of the Indiana Constitution which states in part that "The penal code shall be founded on the principals of reformation and not vindictive justice." Judge Trout is imposing the maximum sentence under the plea agreement, ensuring that Lambert is punished even if the Prosecutor does not feel the same, and most of all, protecting the people that elected him while at the same time, staying true to the spirit of the law and the very text of the Indiana Constitution. That is what a Judge should do, and that is why Judge Trout is a great one.

-- Posted by Eddie on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:32 AM

I apologize to all, for some reason my post posted multiple times. Do not let that detract from the message.

-- Posted by Eddie on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:35 AM

WHAT A SHAME !

LETING LAMBERT OFF SO EASY HAS SET A BAD EXAMPLE FOR OUR YOUTH.NO WONDER BRAZIL IS SUCH A MESS WITH THE LAW OFFICERS NOT PUNISHABLE FOR CRIMES COMMITED.

RAPE OF HIS GIRLFRIEND, DRUGS,HOLDING A STAND OFF AND TYING TRAFFIC FOR SEVERAL HOURS.

THIS WAS A SLAP ON THE HAND.

GOD HELP US

THE LAW SURE WON,T

-- Posted by WWJDPeople on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:40 AM

Maybe Brazil is such a mess because too many people are committing idiotic crimes that bog down our judicial system...maybe the problem lies with the people committing the crimes and not the people working everyday to prevent them.

-- Posted by legal08 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:47 AM

Obviously you don't have to know anything about the legal process to criticize a Judge who must dispense justice within the confines of that process. In the Lambert case, Judge Trout rejected two earlier plea agreements as being too lenient, despite the requests of the prosecutor and the consent of the victim! If Judge Trout had rejected the third (and final) plea agreement, a jury trial would have been scheduled, despite the protests of the prosecutor and the victim. Under these circumstances, it is ridiculous to suggest that Judge Trout took any action other than to impose the most severe penalty he could, under the terms of the plea agreement submitted with the blessing of the prosecutor and the victim. To those of you who have criticized Judge Trout without understanding how the system works, you are forgiven. To those of you who have criticized Judge Trout and understand how the system works, you are irresponsible.

-- Posted by daddyw on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 10:29 AM

Did some of you actually read the article? Freedom of speech is so important, but there is responsibility that goes along with that right and privilege. If nothing else, some of you could have read the entire article before posting your comment! I don't understand how the process fully works in a situation like this, but I read the ENTIRE article and it seems that Judge Trout went to the lengths that he could.

"Trout accepted a third guilty plea agreement presented in the case"

"but only if Lambert served the maximum amount of assigned time in Clay County."

The two comments blaming the judge and others for "Brazil being in a mess", and making false accusations are what set a bad example for our youth! Posting comments in print that questions the honesty of another human being without having all of the facts is much worse than having a sentence given that you wish could have been harsher.

I just hope that Judge Trout can forgive the ignorance of those who have passed a sentence down for him that is unfair, unjustified, and was handed down without three attempts to monitor before printing. And for those of you passed judgment then used "JJWD", or "GOD" in your posting -- you should be ashamed. I just want to go on record that you do not represent the others of us out here who do believe in the correct way in expressing your message. It can be done without teaching our youth that it is okay to say things without having the facts, or to blame those who are trying clean up "the mess".

-- Posted by boomerclp on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 1:01 PM

Well said UNNOIT! Why take the agreement if he got such a low sentence. Most of us would have not even been to trial. We would have been shot by the officers for the behavior he showed that day.

I repspect the police but come on... think the rest of us would be here to tell we had done that???

-- Posted by madmom61 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 1:39 PM

You have a lot of faith in people. You trust them them to always tell the truth and to also make the right decisions in applying the law which they know nothing about. I would rather have a Judge with years of legal experience myself.

-- Posted by legal08 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 1:41 PM

(Quote) Most of us would have not even been to trial. We would have been shot by the officers for the behavior he showed that day.

I repspect the police but come on... think the rest of us would be here to tell we had done that???

-- Posted by madmom61 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 1:39 PM (End Quote)

Can you even imagine how many times the police deal with situations like this? Can you remember the last police shooting in this community? What a complete irresponsible statement!

-- Posted by RickS on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 2:30 PM

No, I can not imagine. I have lived here for 20+ years and do not remember the last time an officer raped a woman, locked himself in a house, waved guns, had school bus routes changed, people forced out of their homes, and shut down a US Highway.

Does this happen often??

-- Posted by madmom61 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 2:41 PM

Fair enough, if you feel that you (as a citizen)could have made a better decision with the facts in this case that is your right. I think it would have been a further waste of tax payers money to take it to trial with a high risk of a far worse result. I just simply disagree.

-- Posted by legal08 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 3:34 PM

One more thing, for those of you that think this case should have went to trial, where in Clay County, Indiana is the Court gonna find 12 fair and impartial jurors to hear the case. Obviously, you folks have already made up your mind. Everyone knows that Mr. Lambert has been trying to plead guilty for 5 months with his plea agreements being rejected. Anyone that has knowledge of that fact could not possibly be fair or impartial.

-- Posted by legal08 on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 3:52 PM

I guess he got a better sentence than Bradley Karn got for NOT USING HIS TURN SIGNAL.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 4:12 PM

People need to educate themselves with the rules of our legal system before they start criticizing, placing blame and making accusations. When the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney make an agreement, the Judge can accept or deny it. If the Judge would have accepted the agreement and this would have gone to trial with a victim who wants to drop the charges and a lenient prosecutor, Lambert could have walked free with no further punishment. In that case a trial would have been a waste of our tax payer's money. Judge Trout punished Lambert to the best of his ability and anyone who says otherwise needs to do a little research. Thanks for serving our community with integrity Judge Trout.

-- Posted by claycountycitizen on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 4:58 PM

A good number of posts indicate Judge Trout set a bad example for our youth by rendering his legal decision concerning Lambert. Such thinking is your right as citizens of our great country. Several even go so far as to blame the degradation of our county on the legal system. I call that passing the buck and using the legal system as a scapegoat for the failure of the family unit to cultivate decent moral values. How absurd!

WWJD....fights in schools and on the buses are because students have not be taught by their parents how to be respectful to others and how to maintain self-control.

madmom.....could you please tell me when was the last time a police officer in Clay County shot someone in a standoff? I think you'd probably be surprised as to the number of times officers go above and beyond to keep all parties safe during resistance situations.

Conservative Dad....I'm sorry if Karn was a family member or friend of yours, but are you positive his death was because he failed to use a turn signal? Didn't he flee police and resist arrest while testing positive for meth, marijuana, and alcohol?

I strongly encourage people to research the facts before passing judgment. I also suggest anyone who believes he could do better than Judge Trout enroll in the nearest university to become a lawyer. Then, after years of hard work, dedication, and service, perhaps you'll be able to render decisions within the letter of the law as Judge Trout did. The grass is always greener on the other side, isn't it?

-- Posted by Bigpappy on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 9:33 PM

well guess we can thank the victim and speacial prosectuor for lambert getting a slap on the hand. without them wanting punisment it would of been a waste of tax payers money to go to trail. Now how will they feel when Lambert repeats his actions and some one gets hurt really bad.They had the upper hand to get him put away. It wasnt trouts fault he did what he could to hand some kind of punishment to lambert.

-- Posted by pepsilady on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 10:24 PM

Jon Lambert committed a crime and he has received his punishment. There have been many comments that Lambert was given too lenient of a sentence, I guess that would depend on what you use for your standard of leniency. It has also been commented that he would have been treated differently if he had been any other citizen, that statement is probably truer than you realize.

If Lambert was any other citizen when he was arrested he would have gone to jail and a bond would have been initially set at $7,000 or $10,000. He would have gone to court for his initial hearing within a few days and after this he would have been allowed to post 10% of the original bond; he would have got out for $700 or $1,000. In this case, Lambert was treated differently; Lambert was held for months on a $50,000 cash only bond.

Lambert's case, like most others in any jurisdiction in the United States, was settled by a plea agreement. Lambert spent enough time in Jail to have qualified for about six months worth of a jail sentence when calculated with good time. Lambert also received 180 days of home detention. Lambert was originally charged with class "D" felonies; later a class "C" felony charge was added.

Many feel that Lambert's sentence was too lenient and if they had committed the crime they would have done more time. I know not everybody has a good idea of how our court system works, but if you think you would have been treated more harshly, you are wrong. We have drug dealers charged with class A and B felonies who routinely get their charges reduced and are let out of jail without doing any significant time, I can provide much proof of this if anybody cares to see it.

There was a similar case to Lambert's that happened in August of 2007 here in Clay County. In this case an intoxicated older man had been in a domestic dispute with his wife, he had previously been convicted for domestic battery on the same lady. Law Enforcement was called by the woman and they responded. This man refused to exit his home while brandishing a firearm, then pointed the firearm directly at officers and told them that he was going to kill them.

This turned into a standoff, like Lamberts ordeal, with officers surrounding the home. As in Lambert's case, negotiations began, however these negotiations did not involve shooting dozens of rounds of tear gas into the mans house as was done with Lambert. Lambert made threats of shooting, but never pointed his weapon at officers, otherwise he would be dead now. Numerous times during the August incident the man pointed his firearm directly at officers, yet none of them shot and killed him as they would have been justified in doing.

As with Lambert, this man eventually got into a position where law enforcement could tackle him and take him into custody. This man put up a fight as Lambert was alleged to have done, and he was restrained. Lambert was shot with bean bag rounds, this man wasn't, this man was taken to the hospital for medical treatment, Lambert received none.. Yes Lambert was treated different.

The man in August was taken to Jail and within two days was allowed to post bond, Lambert was in Jail for months before he could bond out. The man from the August incident posted $700 cash and Deputies from the Clay County Sheriff's Department, the same men he had threatened to kill two days earlier, were ordered to drive him home.

Lambert's family had to dig up $50,000 cash to pay his bond, I'm pretty sure no officer drove him home. Lambert never threatened officers with death after this incident, the man in August told the Deputies " I will shoot you right between your #!$*ing eyes if they ever come to my house again." Lambert was charged with intimidation, the man in August wasn't.

Let's see, two days in jail, $700 bond, and a free ride home versus months in jail and home detention, $50,000 bond, loss of livelihood, and no free ride… Lambert was definitely treated differently.

I also seen that it was posted below that Lambert raped the girl in this case and that drugs were involved. As far as I know, Lambert was never charged with rape or for drugs. The State brought charges against him for everything imaginable, if rape or drugs had been involved it would have surely been charged.

I'm not trying to vindicate Lambert for what he did, I'm just trying to put it into perspective. Lambert should have never handled things the way he did; he should have came out when ordered to like all citizens are suppose to do. He should have never shot the gun into the ground, this was a temper tantrum, but it did not endanger anybody. He should have chosen his relationships with more care and he shouldn't have tried to solve a problem in the relationship with violence. Should Lambert have been treated more harshly because of his position? maybe- was he treated more harshly? Definitely.

Lambert has served time in jail, he will serve home detention, he lost his job, he lost his family, he has lost thousands of dollars, he will never be able to own or possess a firearm, and he will never again be a law enforcement officer - I think he has been punished as harshly as anybody else in Clay County history for a similar crime.

Oh, one parting note, our public officials are not corrupt! Our Sheriff knew that it was not right for his department to investigate the allegation of a crime against one of his officers so he called for the Indiana State Police to investigate. Our Prosecutor knew that he could not prosecute a case against an officer he had worked closely with (conflict of interest), so he called in a special prosecutor. Judge Trout weighed the evidence in the case, denied some of the agreements, ensured that the citizens were served, and pronounced a just sentence. I'm not sure where corruption comes into play here.

-- Posted by sceptic on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 10:41 PM

QUOTE

"I guess he got a better sentence than Bradley Karn got for NOT USING HIS TURN SIGNAL.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 4:12 PM "

Conservative Dad--- Are you kidding??!!! Bradley Karn died for not using a turn signal???? Are sure it wasn't because he was a grossly overweight drug abuser who decided to run from the police and then fight them like an animal? In case you haven't heard, METH KILLS!!! Your ignorant comment has nothing to do with Lambert's case-- if Lambert would have died due to a medical condition brought about by his illegal actions then that would have been his tough luck. Now why don't you go back to suing the County, City, State and anybody else you can think of because the druggie died while being stupid. Remember, If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.

-- Posted by sceptic on Fri, Mar 7, 2008, at 11:05 PM

Nice job Judge Trout!! Glad his 180 days home detention will help pay for the cost of his stunt.

"Clay County was home and I was proud to live here. The people in this county were the reason I did the job," Lambert said, and then testified the feeling in the community has changed toward him. "I don't like being here anymore. It just isn't comfortable for me in this community anymore."

Boo Hoo. Some people feel like that, that have lived here all their lives. Suck it up and deal with it. You got off easy pretty boy.

-- Posted by IndyBklyn99 on Sat, Mar 8, 2008, at 7:49 AM

Sceptic: appropriate pen name. Bradly Karn was initially stopped for not using his turn signal a block and a half from his home. Learn your facts before you speak. I personally have no idea about "suing". But if you they had nothing to hide, then they should not fear the judicial system that they work for, only the people of the jury which they SERVE, along with the rest of the people of Clay Co.. In case you didn't know (even before Feb 2006) Bradley had a valid drivers license, and was mentally ill. Oh, but you already knew that didn't you?

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Sat, Mar 8, 2008, at 10:45 AM

Conservative Dad-

If Bradley was mentally ill at the time of the stop then why didn't his family do something about the fact instead of letting him drive around illegally under the influence of drugs. There are a lot of people out there with mental illness who don't abuse drugs or commit other crimes. It is hard to understand how a family of a mentally ill person sat by and did nothing about the problem and then have the nerve to blame law enforcement when something goes wrong.

The fact is, people who use methamphetamine develop mental illness from the use, are the police suppose to be able to guess who is mentally ill? Are the police suppose to let people break the law just because they are on drugs? If an officer is attacked by a "mentally ill" drug abuser are they suppose to stand there and be seriously injured or killed?

If you know anything about the case, you know that Karn, who weighed at least 350 pounds, was far larger than any of the officers present. Karn tried to kill the officers who were taking him into custody, but they didn't shoot him or try to kill him. When Karn stopped breathing the officers he had been fighting with did everything they could to save his life.

I'm not sure what Bradley being stopped 1 ½ blocks from his home has to do with anything. There is a law requiring the use of a turn signal; they are on every modern car for a reason. He was stopped for a violation of the law and found to be driving a car that had no insurance coverage and the license plate on the car belonged on another vehicle. State law REQUIRES police to impound vehicles found operating on the road with no legal registration and no insurance. If Karn had been allowed to drive away and was later involved in an accident there would be somebody looking to sue the police for letting this illegal vehicle remain on the road.

As far as the lawsuit goes, there is nothing to hide. However, frivolous lawsuits like this bog down the court system and waste the time of everyone involved. The police should be the ones suing the family over this ordeal, they let this problem go on and did nothing to stop it. This lawsuit is not about somebody dying, it's about getting a big check from the tax payers. I just hope the rest of the insurance companies involved don't decide to settle out of court to save trial expense; only one person did anything wrong in this incident and he is now dead due to his own actions.

-- Posted by sceptic on Sat, Mar 8, 2008, at 4:32 PM

Jon Lambert has done his time! Yes, he probably has been treated differently because he's an "ex-cop". Any public servant, especially police officers, are not allowed to be human. They are not allowed to make a mistake. They are not suppose to have any feelings. Jon Lambert is a decent guy who made a bad choice & he's now trying to go on with his life. To the best of my knowledge, the so called "victim" was not raped & he(Lambert) was not under the influence of drugs! In my opinion, I doubt that "the victim" is as innocent as everyone is trying to make her out to be. It doesn't matter that, according to hear say, Jon Lambert was beaten AFTER he was in restraints does it?

Growing up in a family of law enforcement I know first hand how police officers are treated and I can tell you that most of the time it isn't fairly,especially by the public. Some of you people should try walking in their shoes for a while and get a taste of the disrespect they receive. They and their families are viewed differently by the community.

I'm not saying what Joh Lambert did was right, but he's lived his own personal hell & he should be left alone to get on with his life. It sounds like he will most likely be leaving this area, so all of you "perfect" people can live at ease now.

-- Posted by th1953 on Sat, Mar 8, 2008, at 7:21 PM

Unoit- Lambert was charged with making threats about a sex act, not for raping the young lady or forcing her to have sex. Lambert admitted to making the threat, not to forcing her to have sex. To my knowledge, there has never been an accusation made by the victim or any official involved in the case that any sex act was performed due to a threat of death or anything else.

The fact that he made the threat is in and of itself bad enough, people don't have to try to make things worse by making accusations about things that never happened. People need to start reading what is actually printed instead of what they wish was printed. A lot of people thrive on the misery of others, this situation is miserable enough without the lies and false accusations.

Police Officers are obviously held to higher standards, but they are still citizens who are afforded every right given to every other citizen. That higher standard got Lambert, rightfully so, fired from his job. Most other people would still be able to earn a living in their chosen profession if they committed the same crimes. There is no reason to expect a police officer to spend more time in jail than another person just because they are/were a law enforcement officer. If cops are to be held to this higher standard they should surely be compensated a lot better than they are for the risks they take.

-- Posted by sceptic on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 1:19 AM

Unoit- First of all, I didn't forget to read on. Causing injury is not rape, if he had raped the girl then he would have been charged with that crime and sent to prison which is where all rapist deserve to go. I can't imagine any local prosecutor who would make a no prison time plea deal for the charge of rape or any local Judge who would accept a no prison time plea for a rapist. I don't excuse Lambert for what he did, he committed crimes and he deserves to be punished for the crimes he committed, not for imaginary crimes.

Regarding the "Karn Boy", I said nothing about Karn that isn't true. I may have been a bit sharp in my comments, but they mirrored the attitude of the person posting the comment that I was responding to. Everybody, it seems, wants the police out there aggressively enforcing the law, but when an unavoidable situation arises a quick and well populated line forms to criticize the police for everything they had to do.

I'm sure that people loved Karn, but they should have done something about his problem before this incident. Nobody stood up to help Karn with his problem when he was alive, there would have been no pay off for it. Now that he is dead there are plenty of people standing up with their hands out asking for a check.

The comments I made about everything Lambert has lost were made to illustrate the extent of his punishment for those who claim that he got off to easy, I never said that it was not deserved. Additionally, if Lambert had acted as Karn did and died as a result of that, it would have been his fault, not the fault of the officers.

It seems like there are a lot of people who are willing to forgive Karn for a lifetime of mistakes and crimes because he died while committing a crime. There are not many willing to forgive Lambert for a few days of mistakes and crimes because he was a cop.

-- Posted by sceptic on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 3:13 PM

Okay so now we blame the prosecuters. Alot of people have done alot less severe crime (still a crime) but recieve a more severe punishment. Good ole boys club hits the hammer on the head.Brazil is scratch my back and ill scratch yours community. Judges,Prosecutors,Public Defenders,Law enforcement and yes probation officers and Alcohol addiction counselors.

-- Posted by SmallTown on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 6:58 PM

Sceptic: You obviously read what you want to into the post. " I was just mirroring the comments of a previous post". I didn't get any sarcasim from the previous post, or smart alec comments. " Lifetime of crime and mistakes"? Are you kiddin me. Bradley Karn had NEVER been arrested. He was a mentally ill young man who was being cared for by his family, to and including being institutionalized at one point and taking his medications which side affects were weight gain. Let me put it to you like this. He lived for 20+ years, and within seconds after being in police custody, he was dead. He died in police custody. I suppose that he wanted to die? It was not the officers fault that Bradley died, It was not his parents fault, it was not his Doctor's fault, or his pharmacist fault, so whose fault would it be? I'm sure that we will find out soon. Just because OJ was exonerated, does not make him any less guilty.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 7:45 PM

Finally Sceptic, what was the family supposed to do? He was under doctors care, he is of legal age,& had a driver's license.

You seem to think that some how the family is at fault. The family didn't have to watch him 24/7. He was capable of functioning with out supervision as long as he was medicated. I guess I don't know why you want to blame his parents. The police knew at the time he was mentally ill. They never knew he was under the influence until after the toxicolgy report. How did they know before the fact, that he was under the influence of drugs? Obviously, you present your points from one side and I from the other so we will never see this eye to eye. I suppose you are right, the parents deserve nothing but blame for the death of their child.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 7:54 PM

MMMMMMMM I thought this article was about Lambert. But it sounds to be more about Karn, Didnt he run from the law. and died of natural causes, How did the police cause it. If he didnt break the law they would not of tried to stop him>> THis is about Lamberts case not Karn's death

-- Posted by pepsilady on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 11:14 PM

First of all, I have never responded to any story but this time is different because I read these comments all the time for different stories. I am sure those of you who post comments all the time are not quite as perfect as you portray yourselves on here. I am almost positive that you all have skeletons in your closet. I am not sure who said that Lambert raped this poor girl and who mentioned drugs but I am pretty sure he didnt do drugs because hello.....he was a deputy. Also have you ever heard of CONSENSUAL ACTS I am pretty sure this is how this case all started out. I am not condoning what he did was right but he has moved on with his life so let him be. Yes he has a debt to this county but why not let him go live elsewhere since he has started a new life and let him do his detention in another county?? Everyone in the county forgets about this case until it is brought up again and all the new comments get rolling again. Majority of people have forgotten about this case until the newspaper has something in it about this case.

-- Posted by srdd on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 8:18 AM

Your comment is very sad. This whole uproar is about a deputy that did not behave as the public thinks he should have. He is not above the law because he is a deputy. He broke the law and should have to pay for his crimes just like the rest of us. But he is not paying like the rest of us because he was given a very liberal sentence.

And I do not get the Karns connection. I thought this article was about Lambert.

-- Posted by madmom61 on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 9:52 AM

Who's to say he got off lightly, I know of other cases That I thought for sure the person would at least get jail or prison time and got off on probation or house arrest, So how is this case ant different. At least he got something out of this mess he got himself into.

-- Posted by pepsilady on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 3:47 PM

Does anyone really care that he serves his time in Clay County? I know that most people dont really care so how is it that he has a debt to this county so that is why he is to serve his probabtion in Clay County. I am sure most folks really dont care where he is located. About the Karn case that has nothing to do with the Lambert case so why even bring up Brad Karn. I am pretty sure that police officers are not going to go up to somebody that is being beligerent and ask if they have a drug problem or breathing problem and then decide well..........maybe we better not spray with the OC spray. NO that is not how this situation works because if you get busted by the cops then cooperate for god sakes and dont fight with them because then that is when things get serious. Police officers dont check your medical background before they react properly to restrain. So whoever started up this convo is really ridiculous for even bringing it up. The article is about LAMBERT and it did not read KARN stick to the subject people!

-- Posted by srdd on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 4:36 PM

Wow. Apparently, I'm not the only opinionated person in Brazil. ; )

1. Conservative Dad & Sceptic (not septic, mind you) two different viewpoints, (agree to disagree) BUT the reference made to KARN should never have entered the opinion page regarding LAMBERT. Apples & Oranges.

2. One need only read the opinions to recognize WHY there are those who are unfamiliar with laws, rules, regulations and the like. Enough said.

3. I've known Judge Trout a number of years and believe that he has the best interest of this town and community at heart. Say what you will about him. It's far easier to be "outside the box" and judge others than to walk in their shoes.

4. Bottom line - there will always be those who feel Lambert received a slap on the wrist and those who believe punishment was swift and just. One side will never convince the other, but what a wonderful world we live in where we can engage in constructive (at least it should be) banter and opinions. One word of advice .. ? Don't take it personal. Present the facts and leave the emotion out of it.

Thanks for the read.

-- Posted by Emmes on Mon, Mar 17, 2008, at 11:33 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.