"We need citizens to call us when they have a law enforcement need," Neves told the Sacramento CBS affiliate. "The last thing I can afford is to have a public policy that you can't call the Sheriff's office because you may be sued by one of the responders who is there to protect [you]."I actually have mixed feelings about this--if I am doing something evil and injure or kill you, you or your survivors should be able to hold me accountable in all ways, including financially. I would think a police officer should have the same claim.
The reason I do the "Only Ones" series is to illustrate police and government employees having special privileges and immunities, not available to We the People, based solely on their employment status. But I don't think a cop should have fewer rights, either.
This might even have the unintended consequences of incentivizing the public not to rely on police, that is, increasing self reliance and reducing dependency on government (but then again, they'd probably then end up being prosecuted for vigilantism).
I dunno--like I said, my feelings are mixed. We've seen ridiculous abuses in the past, like this infuriating story. And I can see a need for a "fireman's rule" of sorts, and yes, risks are part of the job.
I'd be interested in hearing how others think this should be approached, and why.
[Via Zachary G]
19 comments:
David,
No, not less rights, the same rights as every other citizen.
However, each and every Only One chooses their careers. Not a one of them had a gun stuck to their heads and forced to become an Only One.
Each and every Only One knows from the outset that the career they have chosen for THEMSELVES entails the possibility of physical harm, permanent injury and even death.
This disgusting lawsuit not only is intended to strip her of any monies she has, it also is intended to strip her of any remaining dignity, mental health, and standing in her community.
Moreover, it is also intended to serve as a warning to the public at large- either lay down like a dog when we say so, or face our wrath. And if perchance you happen to hurt we, the ONLY ONES, we will have OUR lawyers, who via our unions, tacit government backing, and our ONLY ONES brethren spread across this land, will sue you into OBLIVION! NOW SHUT UP and I SAID SIGN THE GODDAMN THING AND SIGN IT NOW!
Nope, this is just another special privilege afforded the Only Ones IMO.
I think cops have to take the bad with the good. If they're going to claim official immunity then they have to accept that it's a dangerous job and sometimes bad things happen.
On the other hand, if they would give up that official immunity then I see no problem with suing someone for injury. (Fat chance of that.)
If I were her, I would countersue on the basis that if they had been better trained, and more professional in their conduct, they would not have been injured, causing them to sue for damages,due to their own negligence. There! Hey, this legalese BS almost writes itself. They are villianous scum, and should have their citizenship removed and then deported.
...if I am doing something evil and injure or kill you, you or your survivors should be able to hold me accountable in all ways, including financially.
Sure, they could hold YOU accountable, but if you get killed in the encounter, should they get to go after your FAMILY?
I say no, and here's why: First, as previously mentioned, nobody makes anybody be a cop. There are inherent risks involved in choosing that line of work. Second, even one who chooses to be a cop is not LEGALLY OBLIGATED to respond to such a call. So there's another level of voluntary engagement in the situation.
Unless they can prove that the lady knowingly and maliciously laid some kind of death trap for the officers by cleverly having her husband killed and her other son call 911, I don't think she's responsible for the injuries to the officers.
Sure, they could hold YOU accountable, but if you get killed in the encounter, should they get to go after your FAMILY?
Work with me on this, Nick--if they don't kill me, would part of holding me accountable include being financially so, meaning they could sue me for damages? Please answer this first, "yes" or "no" and why, before going on to the next question.
Now--if they did kill me, why would my estate not be fair game, as it would be for anyone else who I harmed in an evil or negligent act that also claimed my life?
That it hurts my family would be incidental, no?
I'm trying to establish consistency here for reasons already stated.
I think Only Ones should have the same rights as everyone else. I see no basis for suing the living family member. It's unconscionable.
I think the amount is excessive, and just like the infamous McDonald's hot coffee case, a fair judge will reduce it.
My understanding is that the inquiry by the DA's office is yet to be completed. However--based on the broad definition of liability used in other cases--if it does reveal that Eddie's shots are those that struck the officers, and he has some stake in the "estate", then it seems reasonable to me that the officers may sue for recovery of both their legal and medical expenses. I envision that the officer's insurance company sues the company that holds the homeowner's policy. If neither are insured, then things are more direct.
Another resolution would be that the county or state covers the liability for both parties in such cases, the same way my state does for hunters on state lands.
I characterized the award that the plaintiffs are seeking as "excessive" because I cannot imagine how they arrived at the figure. We know the injuries weren't life-threatening, but are they crippling? Can the officers still do their job? If not, then they could sue for the sum of their salaries until retirement. I don't see how that and the legal fees could amount to more than a seven digit figure, unless these officers are unusually young, or paid an unusually large salary.
Since Mr. Grigg brought up the "Fireman's Rule", I thought it would be helpful to supply this very relevant information as well:
Scroll to section 1714.9
Could an injured fireman sue someone who had improperly stored smokeless powder and not notified the responders when they arrived? I would think so. This is probably why the plaintiffs allege negligence.
Cops have the same rights as any other human, except when on duty. By becoming a "public servant" they voluntarily give up some of their rights while on the job. That is why they should not be allowed to carry weapons while on duty; a weapon and "authority" are a dangerous combination. They should encourage a universally armed populace to call upon should they need armed support.
The officers' overblown descriptions of "tunnels and a bunker" blow their credibility. I'd laugh them out of my courtroom for just that.
Have to think about other aspects.
We know how hard it can be to deny access to guns to anyone intent on getting them. That's an impossible benchmark for the police to demand of the family. People do unexpected things, as well. If they had known the boy was going to do anything like this, they'd certainly have done something. It's the opposite of the mental homeless shooter who shot promiscuously in his neighborhood for TWO CONSECUTIVE NIGHTS and all the police did was confiscate his guns and leave him loose. Later that week he stabbed an elderly woman to death. Cops STRONGLY object to being sued when things liek that happen.
Kent:
I'm not sure I follow you. I'm not comfortable with surrendering rights based on occupation. It's a sticky situation with military service; I wouldn't want to extend it to civil service, or anywhere in the private sector.
If police were made to surrender some of their rights, then someone could apply the same argument to force me to surrender some of mine, because I work in a public school district.
I want the police to have the same rights and powers as me, including the right to bear arms, and the power of arrest.
Defender:
I think the plaintiff's attorney is the source of the hysterical exaggerations. My guess is that (s)he's going to attempt to build a case that the attack on the police was planned ahead of time, that the parents had knowledge of this, and that they neglected to inform the 911 operator. My speculation, anyway.
David,
While suing the SON's estate might be acceptable, suing his MOTHER is tantamount to the chinese practice of charging families of executed prisoners for the cost of the ammunition. The son was 35 years old. A legal adult, NOT a child, or even legally considered a child. Thus, suing the MOTHER is wrong and vindictive.
As far as suing the SON's estate for damages. Personally, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They had no obligation to be there. We can not sue them for refusing to place themselves in danger. They made a choice and suffered the consequences of that choice. Please also note that we do not know who actually shot these leos. It could have been friendly fire.
If we were able to hold police officers personally accountable for their actions then I would have less of a problem with them being able to sue. However, as they currently operate under a different set of rules from the rest of us, I think that they should not be able to sue this poor woman.
What if that was the son's primary residence, and there was no documented rent agreement?
What if your mother took your car keys? Would you submit, just because she didn't think you should drive and you were 35?
Or would she actually be in legal trouble for doing so? How is that different from these two cretins trying to hold this woman responsible for what another adult did? Would they have arrested her had the son filed a complaint that she stole his guns? Do we need ask?
Also, since the cops have no duty to respond, the department bears more blame than the widow. They assigned these cretins to hazardous duty, which by the way, the officers have to request. They then dispatched them to a dangerous situation, even though, they have no legal duty to respond. These two cretins then elected, voluntarily, to participate. They weighed the consequences of non-compliance (firing)and accepted the risk.
Now they want to sue a victim of the murder. Huh uh!
The police are not a civil organization they are para-military,(becoming more military and less para all the time) hence some restrictions on recourse for consequences of the performance of their duty as assigned by their superior officers.
I agree that the mother can't be held liable for failing to disarm a 35-year-old, but I am pointing out that the "estate" of the shooter may be held liable, depending on what the police knew or what they were told.
The "Fireman's Rule" doesn't apply where there is negligence, or willful deceit. I don't know if that applies here, but the fact that the police sent a SWAT team suggests they knew the killer was still in the area.
And if I may: Forget THIS case. Just as a general rule, should there be circumstances where police can sue for personal damages incurred while responding on the job?
If the answer is "No-never," why?
If the answer is "Sometimes," then won't that be decided in court?
David,
No, never, until and unless that officer is able to be held personally liable for what he does on the job.
e.g. Cops currently have carte blanche to shoot dogs, as long as they claim that they 'felt' threatened. Remove that, make them subject to the same laws we are and allow them to be held liable for damages incurred. Allow families who have been terrorized by 'wrong address' no knock warrants to sue the cops involved, and their superiors who authorized the no knock warrant, including the judge who signed it, and I would have no problem with removing or relaxing 'fireman laws'.
Gregg, thanks--that's a good answer.
I agree with Gregg.
Post a Comment