I don't know what to think about this. I find it disturbing. This is in a rural county. My county. The shooting took place a 1/4 mile down the road from where I was working that day. The son got what he deserved. But sueing the mother?

www.sacbee.com/101/story/1145192.html

Son battled officers; now mom fights suit
Year after Shingle Springs shootout, deputies seek $8 million from widow
By Dorothy Korber - [email protected]

A carved post and a boulder mark the place where Eddie Mies gunned down his dad last year on the family's rustic homestead in Shingle Springs.

Up the hill a little farther, among the dusty pines and chaparral, stands another wooden post and a cairn of smaller rocks. This is where Mies, who was 34, died of bullet wounds from the ensuing gunbattle with El Dorado County deputies.

Three deputies and a police dog also were hit in the firefight that morning; all survived.

The bloody date was June 5, 2007. Karen Mies, staggering under the news that her son had murdered her husband, told a family friend she was grateful for one thing: The wounded deputies were alive.

One year later to the day, two of the deputies filed a civil lawsuit against the widow and the estate of her deceased husband, Arthur, and her son. Officers Jon Yaws and Greg Murphy – both recovered and back at work – each is suing the Mies family for $4 million for emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and punitive damages.

Given her modest circumstances, the 66-year-old hospice nurse says their $8 million claim would be laughable – if the whole situation were not so heartbreaking.

"June 5 was a tragic day for me and my family, and it was a tragic day for the deputies who were injured," Karen Mies said. "We were all victims that day. But this lawsuit is victimizing our family again. What do they want? My husband's dead, my son's dead. Do they want my house and my 10-year-old car?"

In their lawsuit, Yaws and Murphy allege the Mies family was negligent in failing to control their troubled son Eddie, behavior that led to the gunbattle and their injuries. Yaws was wounded in the arm, chest and leg; Murphy was struck once in the leg.

In addition to their physical injuries, the suit alleges the deputies suffered anxiety and humiliation.

Such lawsuits by police officers are highly unusual – and hard to win, according to several experts in tort law. They point to a long-standing legal tenet called "the firefighter's rule," which generally precludes emergency workers injured in the line of duty from suing citizens.

"With the firefighter's rule, the reasoning is that they voluntarily agreed to undertake these risks – they know going in that fighting crime or fighting fires is dangerous," said Julie Davies, a professor at McGeorge School of Law. "Additionally, they are paid well to encounter the risks. They're given a whole packet of benefits to compensate them if they're injured, so allowing them to sue citizens would almost be like double taxation."

Davies said there's another consideration, as well: "If people worry that they might be sued by police officers or firefighters, they might hesitate to call on them for help. And that would be bad public policy."

Clients advised not to talk

Yaws and Murphy are represented by Sacramento lawyer Phillip Mastagni, whose family law firm works for police unions across Northern California. Mastagni declined to let his clients be interviewed. He also said he would not discuss the case in detail.

"The lawsuit speaks for itself," Mastagni said. "But I just want to say this: We are confident that the firefighter's rule will not bar the claim."

Filed in El Dorado Superior Court, the lawsuit claims that Eddie Mies should have known that he was "afflicted with certain mental health conditions" that would result in dangerous and violent behavior.

It also states his parents knew or should have known that it was "necessary to avoid allowing Eddie Mies access to firearms," and were negligent in allowing him that access.

In addition to Eddie Mies and his parents, the lawsuit also names his brother Jacob as a defendant. It states that Jacob Mies misled the first officers who arrived at the scene by not immediately informing them that Eddie had killed his father.

Many of the claims cited in the suit are disputed by the Mies family.

The suit alleges Eddie Mies was a diagnosed schizophrenic – not true, according to his mother. She said his mental problems were undiagnosed because he resisted treatment.

"He began showing unusual symptoms and fears about six years before he died," she said. "We tried several times to have him evaluated – we even talked him into going to the emergency room a couple of times. The first time, a doctor talked to him for about five minutes. The next time, a 2-year-old was screaming in the waiting room and Eddie bolted."

The suit also claims the family should have known of "Eddie's mental illness, drug abuse, criminal history, paranoia and propensity for violence."

The criminal history, according to Karen Mies, amounts to traffic arrests in Reno and Wyoming.

'He was gentle and kind'

As for foreknowledge of violence, she said her son was clearly depressed but there was nothing to indicate he would snap. She contends the family had no reason to be wary – and that Eddie's murder of his father shows they were not.

"Eddie never appeared to be a danger to himself or anyone else," she said. "That would have been legal grounds to have him committed, but it never reached that point. He was gentle and kind."

The suit, which claims the deputies were the victims of a well-planned ambush, contains this depiction of the shootout's aftermath: "Eddie Mies was found dead in a bunker with a cache of weapons and ammunition, as well as a change of clothes. A survey of the property revealed an elaborate system of bunkers and tunnels."

This description leaves Karen Mies shaking her head. Her responses: The two weapons he used – a shotgun and a revolver – were guns he owned legally as an adult. The ammunition cache was an old toolbox holding bullets, birdshot and other odds and ends. The change of clothes was a jacket.

As for the bunkers and tunnels, Karen Mies led a walking tour of her 2 1/2 acres. She and Arthur raised their six children here; Eddie, the second youngest, was 2 when they moved in.

It's a typical foothills property – a small blue house on Shingle Road, a garden, several pickup trucks in various states of repair, quiet except for wind chimes and the bark of a distant dog. A neighboring property of similar size recently sold for $250,000.

American flags and patriotic ribbons decorate the fence in support of U.S. troops – Art Mies, who was 71 when he died, was a proud Air Force veteran.

Karen Mies walked past the memorial to her husband at the spot where he was sawing firewood when Eddie shot him in the back. She led the way up the hill, through dead corn that Eddie had planted near the small travel trailer where he was living the last year of his life.

She stopped at a wire fence on her property line and pointed to a shallow depression in the ground.

"There were a couple of holes up here where the kids used to play – they've been here for years," she said. She nodded toward a trail that wound away through the brush. "There are trails like that through the grass. When I read 'tunnels' and 'bunkers' in the lawsuit, I couldn't believe it."

Ballistics tests aren't finished

An official investigation of the incident might yield some answers. More than a year later, however, the El Dorado County District Attorney's Office still has not issued its findings. Ballistics tests by the state Department of Justice – to determine who shot whom – are also not finished.

Last month, the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department rejected The Bee's written request for results of its investigation into the Mies case.

Asked to comment on the deputies' lawsuit, Sheriff Jeff Neves sent an e-mail response: "A sheriff's employee is exercising his individual rights as a citizen and in doing so does not officially represent the department in any way."

Bill Clark, El Dorado County's chief deputy district attorney, said his office has been too busy to wind up the case. There have been three other deputy-involved fatal shootings in the county since Eddie Mies' death.

"There's just too much pressing stuff," Clark said. "I've read the results of the Mies investigation, I have an opinion on it, but I have to check the facts."

Greg Murphy now works for the El Dorado District Attorney's Office as an investigator. Jon Yaws is back at work as a deputy sheriff. Donder, the injured police dog, retired from service and is now "spoiled rotten," according to Melissa Meekma, who was the third deputy wounded that day.

Meekma's shoulder was shattered when a shot penetrated the seam of her bullet-proof vest. Healed physically but still struggling with post-traumatic stress, she took a medical retirement from the Sheriff's Department, effective June 30. She is 28.

Her own trials have made her sympathetic to the plight of the Mies family, Meekma said, and she has declined to sue them.

"I went through my own hard times, and I did some soul-searching," she said. "My job was to protect that day, and that's what I did. That's the risk I took – and I know the price I paid. I cannot imagine what Karen Mies went through, burying a husband and a son."

Meekma said she's made her peace with Eddie Mies.

"Part of my healing was to forgive Eddie Mies," she said. "He was very sick – he needed help, too. … I had nightmares for a while. When I decided not to be part of the lawsuit, my nightmares stopped."

Mom tries to understand son

Karen Mies says the loss of her husband of four decades – "my good guy" – is a constant ache. But it's the riddle of her son that haunts her.

"Eddie's life was tragic and sad – he was battling these demons, but he couldn't see that he had a problem and we couldn't get help for him," she said. "My consolation was that by living here with us, we knew he was safe. There was a warm, dry place in winter. He had food to eat.

"Parents want to fix things for their kids – it's hard when you can't fix it. So you hope and pray."

She stood in reverie near the family's memorial for Eddie. Here he died of his wounds after firing on an army of police for nearly an hour.

Does she ever think of moving away from the ghosts on Shingle Road?

"No," she said, a little surprised by the question. "I belong here."

Update 8-18-08

The local paper ran an article today stating the 2 deputies have upped the ante in their lawsuit to $38.4 MILLION against the widow of the murder victim (she is also the mother of the murderer).


Sheriff’s deputies Jon Yaws and Greg Murphy have now served widow Karen Mies with a statement of damages in which they together seek $38.4 million, a figure much higher than the $8 million combined amount both had sought initially.

Yaws, who’s back on the job as a patrol deputy, and Murphy, who now works as an investigator for the DA’s Office, had formally filed a civil suit against Mies and her late husband Arthur’s estate in June, about a month after filing a creditor’s statement against the estate for $8 million.

The two deputies and another, Melissa Meekma, sustained gunshot wounds after responding to Mies’ Shingle Springs residence, where father Arthur Mies had been shot by son Eddie. Both Mieses later died of their wounds.

A preliminary sheriff’s finding was that the deputies had been shot by the younger Mies (before they shot and killed him), but included police communications at the time that suggested the possibility of friendly fire.

Meekma chose not to be involved in the lawsuit, saying the Mies’ had suffered enough, but Yaws and Murphy proceeded with high profile Sacramento attorney Phillip Mastagni.


In the statement of damages served to Karen Mies, which is not part of the public court record, the two deputies each seek $1 million for pain and suffering, $1 million for emotional distress, $100,000 for medical expenses, $5 million for future medical expenses, $2 million for loss of future earning capacity and $10 million in punitive damages.

Karen Mies invited the Democrat to her modest Tammy Lane home Saturday and said everything that’s happened in the last few months has left her speechless.

“I just feel a great sadness that they chose to victimize us further,” she said. “What is their motivation in doing this? They’re obviously asking for big bucks. Where do they think it’s going to come from? That’s the puzzling part.”

Mies also said she still wants to know if it was in fact her son who fired the shots at the three deputies, or if they wounded each other by accident. The state Department of Criminal Justice’s laboratory has yet to release the ballistics report from the June 2007 incident.

“I’ve always just wanted to know the truth about what happened that day,” she said, adding “whatever it is.”

She’s yet to hire an attorney to represent her and the estate. She said she has until Sept. 8 to respond to the Aug. 8 serving of papers.

Yaws and Murphy have declined comment.

Placerville attorney Steve Tapson said Saturday that legally, under the “firefighter’s rule,” Mies should be protected. That rule is a longstanding legal tenet that protects citizens from being sued by law enforcement and emergency workers, who agree to be paid to place themselves in harm’s way.

“From what I’ve seen the case pretty much falls right into to that rule,” the veteran attorney said. “I don’t see how Mastagni can say it doesn’t. I’m sure interested in hearing his argument.” Share your opinion.

The wife of one of my coworkers works with the wife of one of the deputies at the local hospital and says NO ONE is speaking to the deputies wife. They are totally shocked that they are suing the widow and brother. If by some miracle this lawsuit goes to trial and the deputies win, it would set such a precendent that people will no longer call LE for fear of being sued. The damage it would do to community relations would be immense.

So the son kills his dad, then dies in a shootout.

The deputies involved sue the WIDOW!?!?

Wow, just wow.

What fine, upstanding LEO's.  Reminds me of that other fine specimen who sued the family of the drowned toddler.

You gotta be kidding.  Sheesh.

If they weren't ready to face the prospect of such a thing (being shot I mean) then they had no business being cops.

What a couple of dousche-bags(the cops,that is).

That's beyond fucked up.

I agree that the suit is bs, but its just like every other stupid suit where some citizen whats to sue a cop for pain and suffering because they resisted arrest and got tased or put in a south dallas snot-lock.

At least one of the Officers is a decent human being.


Vulcan94

WTF? You're supposed to accept those risks when you get sworn in.

And as far as I know, you can't sue someone else for the actions of another.

Officers need to get the stick out of their ass.

So they filed the suit.. BFD. All that takes is some paperwork and a few minutes of some ambulance-chaser's time. They won't win it. I hope she countersues for court cost and emotional distress.

I couldn't bring myself to read the whole article.  That just amazes me, and disgusts me.  

It would be different if they got in a gunfight with someone and the asshole didn't die.  Then by all means sue the worthless fuck if you feel the burning desire to do so...but to sue the WIDOW?

What




The




Fuck.

Remember the bitch Officer that sued the parents of a kid who had been rescued from a pool?  She slipped on the water and hurt her little knee.


I can't recall what all happened with that one.

Quoted: Remember the bitch Officer that sued the parents of a kid who had been rescued from a pool?  She slipped on the water and hurt her little knee. I can't recall what all happened with that one.

IIRC, the bitch got her ass handed to her.  Suit thrown out, and her ass fired.

Quoted: Quoted: Remember the bitch Officer that sued the parents of a kid who had been rescued from a pool?  She slipped on the water and hurt her little knee. I can't recall what all happened with that one. IIRC, the bitch got her ass handed to her.  Suit thrown out, and her ass fired.

Good.

Too bad the son didn't waste that useless sack of flesh.

If people can sue cops for killing or injuring their thug children while breaking the law.. why cant cops do the same....

You may not like it, but it goes both ways...

Quoted: Too bad the son didn't waste that useless sack of flesh.

Classy.

Brian

Lawyers, man...lawyers....

Quoted: If people can sue cops for killing or injuring their thug children while breaking the law.. why cant cops do the same.... You may not like it, but it goes both ways...

No it doesn't...because that's the job!
They signed on for that.
It's like a soldier joining during peace time suing the Army for sending him to war.
You sign on, you're on.
What's next? Firemen suing families whose homes they have to extinguish?

One year later to the day, two of the deputies filed a civil lawsuit against the widow and the estate of her deceased husband, Arthur, and her son. Officers Jon Yaws and Greg Murphy – both recovered and back at work – each is suing the Mies family for $4 million for emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and punitive damages.

I'm curious to know why the department isn't covering the medical & loss of earning capacity claims - sounds like these deputies aren't back to 100%.

If the family knew the son had mental health issues I think they had an obligation to keep him away from firearms - I'm positive others will disagree.

I suspect there's a lot more to the story than that article lets on.

Brian

I literally cannot find the words to respond to that news story.

CoP thread = CoC violation.

WTF is wrong with these people?

Quoted: Quoted: If people can sue cops for killing or injuring their thug children while breaking the law.. why cant cops do the same.... You may not like it, but it goes both ways... No it doesn't...because that's the job! They signed on for that. It's like a soldier joining during peace time suing the Army for sending him to war. You sign on, you're on. What's next? Firemen suing families whose homes they have to extinguish?

This will get tossed out of court quickly and the department and officers get a black eye.  I don't see how they plan on getting around the fireman's rule.

Quoted: Quoted: Too bad the son didn't waste that useless sack of flesh. Classy. Brian

Like suing a widow for 8 million is a class act...

somebody smelt some $$$

Quoted: I don't see how they plan on getting around the fireman's rule.

I've an article where the plaintiff's attorney specifically stated the fireman's rule doesn't apply to their case - be interesting to hear the details.

Brian

Not surprising, everyone is sue happy.Hope they spend a bundle on attorneys fees and lose.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't see how they plan on getting around the fireman's rule. I've an article where the plaintiff's attorney specifically stated the fireman's rule doesn't apply to their case - be interesting to hear the details. Brian

Let me guess how: they ain't firemen.... (or any kind of men for that matter...)

What total scumbags.

Whiney little bitches. They signed up for something that could have a little hazard, and why they got it, they cry like bitches.

Fuck 'em.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't see how they plan on getting around the fireman's rule. I've an article where the plaintiff's attorney specifically stated the fireman's rule doesn't apply to their case - be interesting to hear the details. Brian Let me guess how: they ain't firemen.... (or any kind of men for that matter...) What total scumbags. Whiney little bitches. They signed up for something that could have a little hazard, and why they got it, they cry like bitches. Fuck 'em.

You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand?

I'll raise the BS flag.

I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter.......

Brian

Quoted: You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand? I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter....... Brian

The devil is in the details: if these cops were hurt on the job, why would they be told to pound sand by their department?

Quoted: Quoted: You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand? I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter....... Brian The devil is in the details: if these cops were hurt on the job, why would they be told to pound sand by their department?

...and if they were why are they not going after their department?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand? I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter....... Brian The devil is in the details: if these cops were hurt on the job, why would they be told to pound sand by their department? ...and if they were why are they not going after their department?

Precisely.
I'll agree we are not being told everything...I think what we're not being told is these cops are not ones that other cops want working with them.

Quoted: I'm curious to know why the department isn't covering the medical & loss of earning capacity claims - sounds like these deputies aren't back to 100%. Brian

They did - They are.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand? I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter....... Brian The devil is in the details: if these cops were hurt on the job, why would they be told to pound sand by their department? ...and if they were why are they not going after their department? Precisely. I'll agree we are not being told everything...I think what we're not being told is these cops are not ones that other cops want working with them.

This part hints at a lot. And while I did not vote for him, Sheriff Neves has been a good one.

Ballistics tests aren't finished

An official investigation of the incident might yield some answers. More than a year later, however, the El Dorado County District Attorney's Office still has not issued its findings. Ballistics tests by the state Department of Justice – to determine who shot whom – are also not finished.

Last month, the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department rejected The Bee's written request for results of its investigation into the Mies case.

Asked to comment on the deputies' lawsuit, Sheriff Jeff Neves sent an e-mail response: "A sheriff's employee is exercising his individual rights as a citizen and in doing so does not officially represent the department in any way."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand? I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter....... Brian The devil is in the details: if these cops were hurt on the job, why would they be told to pound sand by their department? ...and if they were why are they not going after their department? Precisely. I'll agree we are not being told everything...I think what we're not being told is these cops are not ones that other cops want working with them. This part hints at a lot. And while I did not vote for him, Sheriff Neves has been a good one. Ballistics tests aren't finished An official investigation of the incident might yield some answers. More than a year later, however, the El Dorado County District Attorney's Office still has not issued its findings. Ballistics tests by the state Department of Justice – to determine who shot whom – are also not finished. Last month, the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department rejected The Bee's written request for results of its investigation into the Mies case. Asked to comment on the deputies' lawsuit, Sheriff Jeff Neves sent an e-mail response: "A sheriff's employee is exercising his individual rights as a citizen and in doing so does not officially represent the department in any way."

I wonder what the sheriff would think of someone attempting to excersize their right to own a new AR-15?

Methinks not very good......

Quoted: Quoted: I'm curious to know why the department isn't covering the medical & loss of earning capacity claims - sounds like these deputies aren't back to 100%. Brian They did - They are.

Then why are the deputies claiming medical expenses and lost earning potential?  If the deputies are back on patrol with no long term physical issues those claims will be thrown out in short order.

Are you trying to say the deputies may have shot each other with the comments about the ballistic testing?

Brian

Fucking disgusting.  Greedy unscrupulous bastards.  

Why shouldn't they be able to sue? They were injured because of the deliberate criminal acts of another. Its not reasonable that they should expect to be injured because of those wrongful acts.

Accidents are one thing, these are injuries because of the deliberate acts of another.

Still a free country, and people are still free to bring suit as they deem needed. It'll be up to a court to determine the validity of the suit. Going after bad guys civilly is a great thing for officers who have been injured, even if you don't agree with this particular suit.

Quoted: Still a free country, and people are still free to bring suit as they deem needed. It'll be up to a court to determine the validity of the suit. Going after bad guys civilly is a great thing for officers who have been injured, even if you don't agree with this particular suit.

er, read it again.  The bad guy is dead.   They aren't going after his assets.  

Quoted: [ er, read it again.  The bad guy is dead.   They aren't going after his assets.

I read it just fine. I know who they are suing. I'm commenting on the ability of officers to sue- some people here think officers shouldn't be able to sue at all for injuriuries received in the line of duty.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm curious to know why the department isn't covering the medical & loss of earning capacity claims - sounds like these deputies aren't back to 100%. Brian They did - They are. Then why are the deputies claiming medical expenses and lost earning potential?  If the deputies are back on patrol with no long term physical issues those claims will be thrown out in short order.

I don't know why. Maybe because when they first came back on duty they had light duty and couldn't get any OT. I do know that one is back on duty. The other one quit after going back on duty and now works for another agency.

Are you trying to say the deputies may have shot each other with the comments about the ballistic testing? Brian

No Brian, I am not saying that. The forensic investigation is still on going. They apparently think it's a possibility, hence the reason they are still awaiting the test results.

It was a crappy deal. son shot his dad out of the clear blue. Sheriff's dept was called and the son waited to ambush them. There were a butt load of officers responding. A lot of shooting going on. Friendly fire stuff does happen, but IMO, that should have no bearing on them sueing the mother. Or anything else. Falls under "shit happens". FWIW I don't think any of the 3 initial responding deputies were hit by friendly fire. They were approaching the house from the front, out in the open. IIRC one or 2 were hit then. The son took off into the scrub brush behind the home (sits on a few acres here in the foothills) and one went after him. Other LE showed up.

What do you have to say about this part of the law suit?

In addition to their physical injuries, the suit alleges the deputies suffered anxiety and humiliation.

Or this?

The suit, which claims the deputies were the victims of a well-planned ambushTrue, contains this depiction of the shootout's aftermath: "Eddie Mies was found dead in a bunker with a cache of weapons and ammunition, as well as a change of clothes. A survey of the property revealed an elaborate system of bunkers and tunnels."Not True

Or this from the mom?

She stopped at a wire fence on her property line and pointed to a shallow depression in the ground.

"There were a couple of holes up here where the kids used to play – they've been here for years," she said. She nodded toward a trail that wound away through the brush. "There are trails like that through the grass.True fact

Understand, for the most part the Sheriff's Dept here a very good relationship with the community. All of my experiences with them (all of a social nature, never been so much as pulled over) have been very positive. But it's put people off what these 2 are doing. It was a shock to me.

Quoted: Still a free country, and people are still free to bring suit as they deem needed. It'll be up to a court to determine the validity of the suit. Going after bad guys civilly is a great thing for officers who have been injured, even if you don't agree with this particular suit.

They are not going after the "bad guy", they are going after the widow of the nutcase's first victim.

I am not surprised at who is defending this bullshit lawsuit in this thread.

Quoted: [They are not going after the "bad guy", they are going after the widow of the nutcase's first victim. I am not surprised at who is defending this bullshit lawsuit in this thread.

The courts will decide what is "bullshit" or not.
There has to be a reason the family is fair game. Probably they are closest thing to an estate the bad guy has.
Considering all of the BS lawsuits against officers, my sympathy levels are low.

Quoted: Why shouldn't they be able to sue? They were injured because of the deliberate criminal acts of another. Its not reasonable that they should expect to be injured because of those wrongful acts. Accidents are one thing, these are injuries because of the deliberate acts of another.

They killed the person responsible for their injuries and now they are sueing his mother, the widow of one of his victims, for not "controlling" him.

The man was 34 years old and responsible for his own actions.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't see how they plan on getting around the fireman's rule. I've an article where the plaintiff's attorney specifically stated the fireman's rule doesn't apply to their case - be interesting to hear the details. Brian Let me guess how: they ain't firemen.... (or any kind of men for that matter...) What total scumbags. Whiney little bitches. They signed up for something that could have a little hazard, and why they got it, they cry like bitches. Fuck 'em. You would just suck it up if you had out of pocket medical expenses and/or couldn't perform the same duties as before being shot and the dept/workers comp was telling you to pound sand? I'll raise the BS flag. I'm not sure how I feel on ths one - I suspect there's more to the story but since this is arfcom GD and cops are involved the details don't really matter....... Brian

The usual response for the blue line crowd.  Sounds like the made up story has a lot more in it than reality.....bunkers, ammo cache, blah blah blah.  What a load of bullshit.

As for "out of pocket", that ain't the case here and them being told to "pound sand", where do you get that?

Quoted: Quoted: [They are not going after the "bad guy", they are going after the widow of the nutcase's first victim. I am not surprised at who is defending this bullshit lawsuit in this thread. The courts will decide what is "bullshit" or not. There has to be a reason the family is fair game. Probably they are closest thing to an estate the bad guy has. Considering all of the BS lawsuits against officers, my sympathy levels are low.

So you have an issue with shitbags suing cops over BS but not with cops doing the same thing?

How do you figure that "there has to be a reason the family is fair game"? Surely you are aware that a person does not need to be right in order to file a lawsuit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm curious to know why the department isn't covering the medical & loss of earning capacity claims - sounds like these deputies aren't back to 100%. Brian They did - They are. Then why are the deputies claiming medical expenses and lost earning potential?  If the deputies are back on patrol with no long term physical issues those claims will be thrown out in short order. Are you trying to say the deputies may have shot each other with the comments about the ballistic testing? Brian

It's happened before.  Remember Mrs. Johnson in Atlanta, the little old lady that the usual suspects on here were claiming was a good shoot until the facts came out?  You know, the "whole story" that you are so fond of?

Those cops shot each other, she didn't.

Quoted: Why shouldn't they be able to sue? They were injured because of the deliberate criminal acts of another. Its not reasonable that they should expect to be injured because of those wrongful acts. Accidents are one thing, these are injuries because of the deliberate acts of another.

And that scumbag is dead.  These shitheads are going after a woman who committed no criminal act and lost both her husband and a son, the aforementioned scumbag.

Quoted: So you have an issue with shitbags suing cops over BS but not with cops doing the same thing? How do you figure that "there has to be a reason the family is fair game"? Surely you are aware that a person does not need to be right in order to file a lawsuit.

As I said in my first post, everyone retains the right to bring suit. You get criminals who do it figuring they're going for the payday. I don't see officers bringing suit without having done their research and having a legal basis to bring suit.

Merits of this case aside.


You guys are fucking nuts. There is no free pass to assault or shoot police officers because "they signed up for it". Would that argument hold up in criminal court? Why do you think it would hold up in civil court? "but your honor, they signed up for it" Unbelievable.