A white police officer plans to sue the estate of a black teenager he shot dead because he was traumatized by the fact that he accidentally killed the teen's neighbor in the incident, his lawyer said. [More]Does that mean we can sue the "Only Ones" for trauma if we accidentally kill one of them...?
[Via bondmen]
2 comments:
When an altar boy/aspiring rapper who is just turning his life around gets shot and killed by the police while he is committing a violent felony, it is traditional and customary for the altar boy's grieving family to sue the city. The city always pays the family off, since it's cheaper than going to court. The size of the payoff tells whether the shooting was good or bad; a 5-figure payoff means the shooting was justifiable and legal; a bad shooting results in a 7-figure payout.
The officer here is just anticipating the ghetto-lottery windfall that the grieving family, who called 911 several times claiming they feared for their lives, and never once mentioned the offender's mental problems, will gain from the altar boy's felonious actions. (The altar boy had two pending assault cases in a neighboring county.)
Please note that the officer is not suing the estate of the innocent neighbor, but that of the deceased felon/altar boy. The "but-for" rule appears to apply here: But for the altar boy's felonious behavior, none of this would have happened.
And, under what circumstances do you see yourself accidentally killing police officers?
Yeah, you're right. I'd probably have to be an "Only One" to be in that circumstance. Then again, you never know when you might mistake real "Only Ones" for "Fauxnly Ones."
Post a Comment