-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
follow-on to socal cop shooting
- Thread starter Recidivist
- Start date
WEGL
Registered User
nocal80 said:
Yeah, but just make sure you always at least offer to pay for gas or some kind of compensation for the ride. Some states carry a guest statute to protect the driver (insurance companies really) from suit by passengers. I don't believe CA has one on the books any more though. This dude could really clean up if he wants.... driver, deputy, county..... Whatever the AF decides, I doubt an E4's pay will amount to much compared to what the civil suits will pay out.
Recidivist
Registered User
Great... Celebrate American tradition: Sue Somebody, hell sue everybody!
I agree that he's entitled to some lawsuits, but the mentality of using an accident like this to "clean up" bothers me. Of course, much of the court process bothers me as well.
Still, it's all speculation.
I agree that he's entitled to some lawsuits, but the mentality of using an accident like this to "clean up" bothers me. Of course, much of the court process bothers me as well.
Still, it's all speculation.
WEGL
Registered User
Recidivist said:
I agree that there are problems with the court systems. And, I share in your frustrations with the ridiculous suits that have been brought lately against large industries.(gun, food, tobacco, etc.) People simply need to take responsibility for there own actions. Also in many HMO, malpractice, etc style suits, plaintiffs receive unGodly amounts of money, but there are reasons behind that too though.
But, this is not that type of situation. The man was the unwilling passenger in a car chase that ended in a crash. He was shot three times without cause by a deputy, an agent of the county govt who also owed a duty to hire and train competent officers. The dude is rightly entitled to some kind of retribution. This isn't some dude just grabbing his neck hoping for a payday. Not everyone who utilizes a civil court is a no-working, good-for-nothing, etc dirtbag just looking to get rich off someone else's honest mistake, though I grant you a lot are. That's the court's whole job, to weed through these things.
And, let me go ahead an preempt you. I know you're not saying this dude is a dirtbag for suing, which I'm sure he will, but I know where you're coming from and I agree. People are way too anxious to sue these days when an old fashioned trip behind the wood shed would resolve most issues faster and more effectively. But, when it involves the govt, or one of its agents, what are you to do? Seek retribution via the law.
BTW, are you suggesting that if you were in this E4's position you would only seek bare minimum(med bills) retribution, and wouldn't attempt to "clean up"?
Not trying to instigate, just curious.
:icon_smil
Recidivist
Registered User
1. Not saying that it is frivilous, and as originally stated I agree that he is due compensation.
2. whether or not he was a willing participant in the auto-cahse is speculation by either you or me.
3. I do in fact disagree with the idea of making out with more than you're due. I don't know what it is, but I don't like suing anybody. Ex: my dad just went through a medical process, first doctor ****ed up the exams, misdiagnosed him with cancer, and finally said there was nothing really wrong with him. Finally, he did not send his complete records to the new doctor. this guy f-ed up big time. My dad wants to sue the guy because it turned out that his prostate was more than three time the suggested operating size and 6.5 times the normal size. I am not pro-lawsuit in any more than recovering the actual cost that he paid the original doc, even though his health was seriously threatened by that doctor, and with a good lawyer he could probably get more.
I would probably be pretty pissed if I were shot three times though...
2. whether or not he was a willing participant in the auto-cahse is speculation by either you or me.
3. I do in fact disagree with the idea of making out with more than you're due. I don't know what it is, but I don't like suing anybody. Ex: my dad just went through a medical process, first doctor ****ed up the exams, misdiagnosed him with cancer, and finally said there was nothing really wrong with him. Finally, he did not send his complete records to the new doctor. this guy f-ed up big time. My dad wants to sue the guy because it turned out that his prostate was more than three time the suggested operating size and 6.5 times the normal size. I am not pro-lawsuit in any more than recovering the actual cost that he paid the original doc, even though his health was seriously threatened by that doctor, and with a good lawyer he could probably get more.
I would probably be pretty pissed if I were shot three times though...
Of course, nobody (by definition) should get more than they're due. The question is, how to put a price tag on things like possible permanent disability, pain & suffering, etc. It's that gray area which is so often subjected to the hyperbole of the legal system. Of course, the attorney guilds are strongly opposed to this, but there ought to be guidelines for subjective/punitive damages so as to avoid some of the extremes that juries have been known to go to when awarding monetary relief for damages.Recidivist said:
Brett
Recidivist
Registered User
Brett-
I agree with you on the above post, especially the part about permanent disability, pain and suffering, etc, and what it is worth. I know that we are supposed to trust the jury to decide what the correct amount is, but everybody knows that doesn't always work. My original point (admittedly poorly articulated) was that the "clean up" mentality is a major contributor to that problem. [edit: that problem being excessive settlements]
I agree with you on the above post, especially the part about permanent disability, pain and suffering, etc, and what it is worth. I know that we are supposed to trust the jury to decide what the correct amount is, but everybody knows that doesn't always work. My original point (admittedly poorly articulated) was that the "clean up" mentality is a major contributor to that problem. [edit: that problem being excessive settlements]
Cate
Pretty much invincible
Also remember that a lot of compensation is more punitive than anything else. For instance, quality assurance at ACME Canned Food and Lumber Yard starts slacking off, somehow a whole bunch of their wood chips get mixed in with their green beans, and a six-year-old mistakes it all for his mom's green beans amandine and chokes it down.
Now, the surgery and subsequent care to repair his intestines may only be $20,000, and as a six-year-old, he's not going to have to worry about lost wages. However, $20,000 won't be anywhere near enough to remind ACME Canned Food and Lumber Yard to keep their lumber out of their food, so another $5,000 in pain and suffering and $50,000 in punitive damages might be added by the judge, just to make a point. Whether or not you agree with that comes down to tort reform.
Now, the surgery and subsequent care to repair his intestines may only be $20,000, and as a six-year-old, he's not going to have to worry about lost wages. However, $20,000 won't be anywhere near enough to remind ACME Canned Food and Lumber Yard to keep their lumber out of their food, so another $5,000 in pain and suffering and $50,000 in punitive damages might be added by the judge, just to make a point. Whether or not you agree with that comes down to tort reform.
simmadownnow
Some of you know I took a hard stand in another thread on not hanging this deputy until the investigations are done. Well they are done and the DA wants to charge him and now you are ready to hang. Did I miss something, like a trial! The DA is not saying the deputy wasn't in fear for his life, just that his fear was unreasonable. That is a fine, though significant, distinction. And keep in mind the DA is only charging the cop was unreasonably in fear for his life. The only people that get to actually find the cop was unreasonable is the jury, not you or me. The jury will hear and see things you have not. I know cops that have been tried and hung by the press, and by extension a large portion of the public, even when their department didn't find fault with their actions, the DA didn't file charges and they beat the civil law suit with a unaminous vote of a jury. A jury that truely heard all the evidence, not just the sensational parts. This deputy may well have screwed the pooch. I tend to think so. But what makes everyone so sure when you haven't heard the evidence. Even if the only evidence against him was the tape you have seen, unenhanced, he is allowed to defend himslef. You would want the same for yourself or your brother.
Consider this about reasonable fear. The DA and a jury may find what is reasonable fear different between a 230 lb male and a 135 lb female. Both may be afraid, but only one is reasonably fearful. How about the rookie, 2 months on the street, and the 20 year veteran officer that is SWAT trained? Roll that around your version of what is just and what is unjust. Who should have to pay the big civil suit money and who shouldn't. Who do you want nervously pointing a weapon in your direction?
Some of you know I took a hard stand in another thread on not hanging this deputy until the investigations are done. Well they are done and the DA wants to charge him and now you are ready to hang. Did I miss something, like a trial! The DA is not saying the deputy wasn't in fear for his life, just that his fear was unreasonable. That is a fine, though significant, distinction. And keep in mind the DA is only charging the cop was unreasonably in fear for his life. The only people that get to actually find the cop was unreasonable is the jury, not you or me. The jury will hear and see things you have not. I know cops that have been tried and hung by the press, and by extension a large portion of the public, even when their department didn't find fault with their actions, the DA didn't file charges and they beat the civil law suit with a unaminous vote of a jury. A jury that truely heard all the evidence, not just the sensational parts. This deputy may well have screwed the pooch. I tend to think so. But what makes everyone so sure when you haven't heard the evidence. Even if the only evidence against him was the tape you have seen, unenhanced, he is allowed to defend himslef. You would want the same for yourself or your brother.
Consider this about reasonable fear. The DA and a jury may find what is reasonable fear different between a 230 lb male and a 135 lb female. Both may be afraid, but only one is reasonably fearful. How about the rookie, 2 months on the street, and the 20 year veteran officer that is SWAT trained? Roll that around your version of what is just and what is unjust. Who should have to pay the big civil suit money and who shouldn't. Who do you want nervously pointing a weapon in your direction?
The article says nothing about an internal investigation. It only says the DA has determined charges are warranted. That was based on a seperate criminal investigation. An internal investigation takes place parallel but seperate from the criminal investigation. The facts found and interviews taken by the internal affairs or profession standards officers can not be shared with the DA. This is to protect the officers constitutional rights. The IA investigation simply determines whether the cop was out of department policy. It is not uncommon for a cop to be disciplined for being out of policy and not be charged with any criminal offense or even sued. In fact, it is just as common that a cop not be disciplined for being out of policy and still get sued and the department/officer lose in a civil court. Do not infer anything from the internal investigation vv the criminal charges. The DA has not and can not.rare21 said: