Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
7/8/2020 3:01:36 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/29/2009 10:17:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 10:30:11 AM EDT
Never seen the good guys family suing for wrongfdul death before.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 10:40:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 10:48:35 AM EDT



Originally Posted By Aimless:


Isn't this usually barred by worker's compensation or the cop equivalent?


You would think. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but there is a known potential for it to come with the territory.

 
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 10:56:13 AM EDT
One or two more of these and SWAT will be used for everything. Traffic stops, knock and talk, everything.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 10:57:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Isn't this usually barred by worker's compensation or the cop equivalent?


I'm no attorney, but I think you're only barred from suing if you accept worker's comp.  As far as I know, you can still sue if your employer was negligent and you haven't received treatment under worker's comp.  Think of all those asbestos suits.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 11:07:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By qcka:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Isn't this usually barred by worker's compensation or the cop equivalent?


I'm no attorney, but I think you're only barred from suing if you accept worker's comp.  As far as I know, you can still sue if your employer was negligent and you haven't received treatment under worker's comp.  Think of all those asbestos suits.




I think you may be right, but it seems to me that this isn't a workers comp issue anyhow as it's the family of the slain officer who is suing - not the injured deputy who survived.




-K
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 11:42:37 AM EDT
Interesting, I'm surprised they can sue the goverment, for a death that occured in the line of duty.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 11:44:22 AM EDT
Sorry the officer is dead, but this is just retarded.  

Link Posted: 4/29/2009 12:01:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2009 12:02:08 PM EDT by runcible]
Just off the top of my head...

If the officer had acted out of policy, he'd have been held accountable.

If the department acted out of policy, why shouldn't they?

Link Posted: 4/29/2009 12:04:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By runcible:
Just off the top of my head...

If the officer had acted out of policy, he'd have been held accountable.

If the department acted out of policy, why shouldn't they?



That is probably why the out-of-court settlement happened...

Link Posted: 4/29/2009 12:04:25 PM EDT
Child porn is high risk?




Apparently this guy was, but i don't see calling in a SWAT team for some kiddy diddler pix.


Link Posted: 4/29/2009 1:06:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Interesting, I'm surprised they can sue the goverment, for a death that occured in the line of duty.



The key point is a violation of department policy resulted in his death. Just as if a suspect dies due to a violation of policy.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 2:48:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By peekay:
Child porn is high risk?

Apparently this guy was, but i don't see calling in a SWAT team for some kiddy diddler pix.


Apparently, they knew it was high risk before they sent him in...

Perhaps a repeat offender on a 'I'm not going back! You'll never take me alive' kick...
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 2:49:38 PM EDT
What does killing someone at the wrong address pay these days?
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 2:49:57 PM EDT
I'd bet if a "civilian" got snuffed because they didn't call out SWAT, the Lege wouldn't give a tinker's damn.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 2:59:02 PM EDT
It's "just" tax dollars.

Sorry it happened but this is just a way [and even the Dept knows it] to collect more $$$$ for the family.

Did he have any life insurance?
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 3:01:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By peekay:
Child porn is high risk?

Apparently this guy was, but i don't see calling in a SWAT team for some kiddy diddler pix.


Apparently, they knew it was high risk before they sent him in...

Perhaps a repeat offender on a 'I'm not going back! You'll never take me alive' kick...


So why didn't he say no and refuse until the appropriate force level was on site?



Link Posted: 4/29/2009 4:00:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By StevenH:
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Interesting, I'm surprised they can sue the goverment, for a death that occured in the line of duty.



The key point is a violation of department policy resulted in his death. Just as if a suspect dies due to a violation of policy.


True it was a violation of policy, but if I as a soldier (an employee of the goverment just like a police officer) violate a policy, which is what he did, and in the process get myself killed or I'm killed by an outside party, my family can't sue the goverment.  

At least not that I'm aware of
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 5:38:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 6:07:33 PM EDT
No winners at all to be found here. Damned shame there's an E.O.W. copper and a baby-raper still eating three squares a day.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 6:11:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Sorry the officer is dead, but this is just retarded.  



Same here...sorry the guy died and all, but....

Soldier $400K

Cop $1.8M


Link Posted: 4/29/2009 6:29:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By fxntime:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By peekay:
Child porn is high risk?

Apparently this guy was, but i don't see calling in a SWAT team for some kiddy diddler pix.


Apparently, they knew it was high risk before they sent him in...

Perhaps a repeat offender on a 'I'm not going back! You'll never take me alive' kick...


So why didn't he say no and refuse until the appropriate force level was on site?




His boss told him "Go in and get him" and he did what probably most of us would do, he went in.
 



I know but still................basically making the taxpayer pay for the dept f-up is pretty sad. [as is the death of the officer] Was the officer wearing a vest at the time and caught a round in a unprotected area?
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 7:34:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By peekay:
Child porn is high risk?

Apparently this guy was, but i don't see calling in a SWAT team for some kiddy diddler pix.


What do these guys really have to lose?  Often times they are looking at huge prison sentences if convicted that would effectively incarcerate them for the rest of their lives.  Think about that before you make assumptions.  Remember 100 years in federal prison is 100 years...no such thing as parole.
Link Posted: 4/29/2009 7:52:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pv74:
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Sorry the officer is dead, but this is just retarded.  



Same here...sorry the guy died and all, but....

Soldier $400K Regular "life insurance"/death benefit?

Cop $1.8M Because of negligence on his superiors part?  "Regular" line of duty death w/o policy violation probably wouldn't have had the same results.




Brian

Link Posted: 4/29/2009 7:53:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fxntime:
I know but still................basically making the taxpayer pay for the dept f-up is pretty sad. [as is the death of the officer] Was the officer wearing a vest at the time and caught a round in a unprotected area?


Vests don't stop rifle rounds.  Who else is going to pay for a dept fuck-up?

Brian

Link Posted: 4/29/2009 8:33:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By fxntime:
I know but still................basically making the taxpayer pay for the dept f-up is pretty sad. [as is the death of the officer] Was the officer wearing a vest at the time and caught a round in a unprotected area?


Vests don't stop rifle rounds.  Who else is going to pay for a dept fuck-up?

Brian




Why does someone have to pay?  

Should someone with Level IV body armor have breached the door?  Yes!  

Was Dept Policy Violated?  Yes!

Did someone get killed because of the above?  Yes!

But,

I think what PV74 was getting at above is, if someone in the .mil (both police and .mil are goverment employee's so I think its a fair compairison)  anyways if someone in the .mil gets killed, be it by enemy fire or crushed by a tank that falls off a rail  car cause it was improperly tied down.  In eithier of those cases even if policy was violated by the soldiers Higher HQ's there is no "payout" to the family besides the life insurance (which the soldier pays for out of there salary)

Not a shot at the police or the military, I just think its wrong that there is a "need" to for payout when someone screws up.  Especially when its in a job, that you know there is inherent risk to that job.

Just how I see things
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 1:52:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Originally Posted By StevenH:
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Interesting, I'm surprised they can sue the goverment, for a death that occured in the line of duty.



The key point is a violation of department policy resulted in his death. Just as if a suspect dies due to a violation of policy.


True it was a violation of policy, but if I as a soldier (an employee of the goverment just like a police officer) violate a policy, which is what he did, and in the process get myself killed or I'm killed by an outside party, my family can't sue the goverment.  

At least not that I'm aware of


Cops are not soldiers.

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:24:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Electrician29:
One or two more of these and SWAT will be used for everything. Traffic stops, knock and talk, everything.


The unfortunate truth...  

Feel bad for the family, but what of the asshole that sent him in?  He's probably still working.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:39:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By fxntime:
I know but still................basically making the taxpayer pay for the dept f-up is pretty sad. [as is the death of the officer] Was the officer wearing a vest at the time and caught a round in a unprotected area?


Vests don't stop rifle rounds.  Who else is going to pay for a dept fuck-up?

Brian



The person in charge who made the order without following policy?

Why must it always be the taxpayers covering everyone's fuck-ups???

Guess that's just the normal thought process out west
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 10:06:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Why does someone have to pay?  
Because that's how 'we' handle situations like this

Should someone with Level IV body armor have breached the door?  Yes!  

Was Dept Policy Violated?  Yes!

Did someone get killed because of the above?  Yes!

But,

I think what PV74 was getting at above is, if someone in the .mil (both police and .mil are goverment employee's so I think its a fair compairison)  anyways if someone in the .mil gets killed, be it by enemy fire or crushed by a tank that falls off a rail  car cause it was improperly tied down.  In eithier of those cases even if policy was violated by the soldiers Higher HQ's there is no "payout" to the family besides the life insurance (which the soldier pays for out of there salary) Are .mil folks that have been killed/injured due to faulty wiring in barracks showers receiving any additional compensation/death benefit because of the .mil/.gov contractor?

Not a shot at the police or the military, I just think its wrong that there is a "need" to for payout when someone screws up.  Especially when its in a job, that you know there is inherent risk to that job. If the deputy was killed during an active shooter situation or there were exigent circumstances I would agree with you.  However, it sounds like there was plenty of time to do this warrant service properly and an individual with qualified immunity due to his employement status made a piss poor decision in violation of a standard protocol.

Just how I see things


Brian
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 10:10:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FMJ3:
The person in charge who made the order without following policy?  Little thing called qualified immunity might be a problem....

Why must it always be the taxpayers covering everyone's fuck-ups??? Because LE depts are taxpayer funded?  Funny how "You work for me" is only applicable when it suits your desires......

Guess that's just the normal thought process out west

Care to expand on this pathetic shot across my bow?


Brian

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 11:13:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Why does someone have to pay?  
Because that's how 'we' handle situations like this

Should someone with Level IV body armor have breached the door?  Yes!  

Was Dept Policy Violated?  Yes!

Did someone get killed because of the above?  Yes!

But,

I think what PV74 was getting at above is, if someone in the .mil (both police and .mil are goverment employee's so I think its a fair compairison)  anyways if someone in the .mil gets killed, be it by enemy fire or crushed by a tank that falls off a rail  car cause it was improperly tied down.  In eithier of those cases even if policy was violated by the soldiers Higher HQ's there is no "payout" to the family besides the life insurance (which the soldier pays for out of there salary) Are .mil folks that have been killed/injured due to faulty wiring in barracks showers receiving any additional compensation/death benefit because of the .mil/.gov contractor?

Not a shot at the police or the military, I just think its wrong that there is a "need" to for payout when someone screws up.  Especially when its in a job, that you know there is inherent risk to that job. If the deputy was killed during an active shooter situation or there were exigent circumstances I would agree with you.  However, it sounds like there was plenty of time to do this warrant service properly and an individual with qualified immunity due to his employement status made a piss poor decision in violation of a standard protocol.

Just how I see things


Brian



As Far as I know, nobody who was killed due to faulty wiring or other contractor/.mil screw up is recieving additional benefits.  
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 11:20:18 AM EDT
and people on here bitch and complain when the cops do hi risk warrants...
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 11:33:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
and people on here bitch and complain when the cops do hi risk warrants...


And a lot of those folks are the first to point out cops are not soldiers and shouldn't use the same tactics/toys.  However, those folks are also the same ones that equate cops and soldiers when it suits them - such as this case.

Brian

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 11:36:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 11:55:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
and people on here bitch and complain when the cops do hi risk warrants...


And a lot of those folks are the first to point out cops are not soldiers and shouldn't use the same tactics/toys.  However, those folks are also the same ones that equate cops and soldiers when it suits them - such as this case.
Brian



In this case we are compairing police and soldiers not based on there tactics (what you were referring to) but rather what happens monetairy wise when one or the other is killed due to negligence on the part of a superior during the conduct of their duties.  

I think its a fair compairison in that regard, both are employee's of the goverment, both have their salary's paid by the taxpayer and both work in jobs that are inherently high risk.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 12:01:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Interesting, I'm surprised they can sue the goverment, for a death that occured in the line of duty.



Wrongful death. I'm sure the government clims immunity from civil action in a lot of stuff but maybe this is one of those things where public opinion is too damning to claim that privilege.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 12:19:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
and people on here bitch and complain when the cops do hi risk warrants...


And a lot of those folks are the first to point out cops are not soldiers and shouldn't use the same tactics/toys.  However, those folks are also the same ones that equate cops and soldiers when it suits them - such as this case.
Brian



In this case we are compairing police and soldiers not based on there tactics (what you were referring to) but rather what happens monetairy wise when one or the other is killed due to negligence on the part of a superior during the conduct of their duties.  But remember, cops are civilians and .mil is subject to UCMJ - different rules even if they are paid by the same people.

I think its a fair compairison in that regard, both are employee's of the goverment, both have their salary's paid by the taxpayer and both work in jobs that are inherently high risk.


In an 'equivalent' situation (no exigency - why didn't they arrest the pedophile when he left the house) I'd say .mil folks should be able to sue for wrongful death and win.  In the BSO case, if it was the point man on a SWAT team stack (IAW policy) that was killed I'd say the wrongful death suit was baseless.

Brian



Link Posted: 4/30/2009 1:39:50 PM EDT
Why are they [family] not suing the shooter and his homeowner insurance as he was the real person/entity at fault?

Since the PDs not fighting it, it seems as if this is just another way to get the taxpayer to foot a payment to the family. The ONLY way I can accept this would be for the entire chain of command who had anything to do with this operation be fired for deriliction of duty. Barring this, the city should cut the budget of the PD by this amount and cut the budget and salaries of the entire dept until the 1.8 mil was paid off.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 1:48:29 PM EDT
Since it was stated by the highest LEO that it a procedure/policy screw-up. What was done to ensure this dosen't happen again to the superior officer who ordered this?
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 1:48:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By POW-MIAneverforget:
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
and people on here bitch and complain when the cops do hi risk warrants...


And a lot of those folks are the first to point out cops are not soldiers and shouldn't use the same tactics/toys.  However, those folks are also the same ones that equate cops and soldiers when it suits them - such as this case.
Brian



In this case we are compairing police and soldiers not based on there tactics (what you were referring to) but rather what happens monetairy wise when one or the other is killed due to negligence on the part of a superior during the conduct of their duties.  

I think its a fair compairison in that regard, both are employee's of the goverment, both have their salary's paid by the taxpayer and both work in jobs that are inherently high risk.


I see frequent reminders here regarding the use of the term civilian.  I hear about soldiers signing contracts and them being essentially a piece of government property, etc. etc.  Well, the government doesn't own a civilian LEOs ass.  Civilian LEOs are as entitled to sue as any other civilian in this country, they just tend not to for the most part.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 1:54:24 PM EDT
Why would a Sheriff's Deputy be first due serving Federal Warrants?  WTF is that about?
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:05:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wifd552:
Why would a Sheriff's Deputy be first due serving Federal Warrants?  WTF is that about?


Task force or there is inadequate fed personnel to handle the warrant.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:25:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RDP:
Originally Posted By wifd552:
Why would a Sheriff's Deputy be first due serving Federal Warrants?  WTF is that about?


Task force or there is inadequate fed personnel to handle the warrant.


So local law enforcement can execute their warrants for them, but only federal agents or federally deputized officers can enforce immigration laws.   Amazing how the feds pick and choose to their liking.  
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:32:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By qcka:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Isn't this usually barred by worker's compensation or the cop equivalent?


I'm no attorney, but I think you're only barred from suing if you accept worker's comp.  As far as I know, you can still sue if your employer was negligent and you haven't received treatment under worker's comp.  Think of all those asbestos suits.


Wrong.  You cannot opt out of workers compensation just to file a lawsuit, although some employees of an organization might be exempt from coverage (but not this guy).  This is consistent with the true purpose of worker's compensation, which is actually to benefit employers more than employees by limiting damages.  There are exceptions to worker's compensation immunity, one or more of which were probably relied upon to justify the settlement.

Also, the asbestos personal injury suits were usually filed either against manufacturers of asbsetos or the owners of premises where it was located.  Those affected did not typically sue their employers.

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:39:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wifd552:
Originally Posted By RDP:
Originally Posted By wifd552:
Why would a Sheriff's Deputy be first due serving Federal Warrants?  WTF is that about?


Task force or there is inadequate fed personnel to handle the warrant.


So local law enforcement can execute their warrants for them, but only federal agents or federally deputized officers can enforce immigration laws.   Amazing how the feds pick and choose to their liking.  


Not true all the way either......

There is a program where some local LE is trained in immigration requirements and can refer people to ICE. Unfortunately, the PC police make sure they only work in the jail. When we take the illegals into the jail, they are usually screened automatically, unless there is a back log. If there is a big backlog, the walk through arrests may get out before the ICE process is completed.

Although, I have dropped off a few illegals at the ICE/INS building before. Only one time was the guy a jerk about it as he said he wouldn't open the door. I told him fine, but the guy will be handcuffed to the handle and I am leaving. He came and got him. All of the ones I dropped off were already ID'd as being illegal per ICE/INS.

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:48:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RDP:
Originally Posted By wifd552:
Originally Posted By RDP:
Originally Posted By wifd552:
Why would a Sheriff's Deputy be first due serving Federal Warrants?  WTF is that about?


Task force or there is inadequate fed personnel to handle the warrant.


So local law enforcement can execute their warrants for them, but only federal agents or federally deputized officers can enforce immigration laws.   Amazing how the feds pick and choose to their liking.  


Not true all the way either......

There is a program where some local LE is trained in immigration requirements and can refer people to ICE. Unfortunately, the PC police make sure they only work in the jail. When we take the illegals into the jail, they are usually screened automatically, unless there is a back log. If there is a big backlog, the walk through arrests may get out before the ICE process is completed.

Although, I have dropped off a few illegals at the ICE/INS building before. Only one time was the guy a jerk about it as he said he wouldn't open the door. I told him fine, but the guy will be handcuffed to the handle and I am leaving. He came and got him. All of the ones I dropped off were already ID'd as being illegal per ICE/INS.



That's what I was talking about above.  I meant local officers deputized by the feds.   But it is ridiculous how they can pick and choose what locals can and cannot do to suit their needs.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:58:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fxntime:
Why are they [family] not suing the shooter and his homeowner insurance as he was the real person/entity at fault?  Can't get blood from a turnip?

Since the PDs not fighting it, it seems as if this is just another way to get the taxpayer to foot a payment to the family. The ONLY way I can accept this would be for the entire chain of command who had anything to do with this operation be fired for deriliction of duty. This I could support.  Barring this, the city should cut the budget of the PD by this amount and cut the budget and salaries of the entire dept until the 1.8 mil was paid off. This would be funny if I didn't think you honestly believed it would be just (to the communty and officers) - "rainy day funds" and insurance cover these kinds of expenses.


Brian

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 2:58:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FatCat1:
Since it was stated by the highest LEO that it a procedure/policy screw-up. What was done to ensure this dosen't happen again to the superior officer who ordered this?


Good question.

Brian

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 3:48:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By fxntime:
Why are they [family] not suing the shooter and his homeowner insurance as he was the real person/entity at fault?  Can't get blood from a turnip?

Since the PDs not fighting it, it seems as if this is just another way to get the taxpayer to foot a payment to the family. The ONLY way I can accept this would be for the entire chain of command who had anything to do with this operation be fired for deriliction of duty. This I could support.  Barring this, the city should cut the budget of the PD by this amount and cut the budget and salaries of the entire dept until the 1.8 mil was paid off. This would be funny if I didn't think you honestly believed it would be just (to the communty and officers) - "rainy day funds" and insurance cover these kinds of expenses.


Brian



So it's "just" making the taxpayer pay for the PDs screwup. It's interesting that the PD isn't even trying to fight this like iot would if someone else sued the PD for maybe a T/A due to officer negligence. Maybe thats due to one of their "own" [family] that is the "aggrieved" party?

And yes, the ethical thing to do would be, if they wanted to pay off the family, is to all take decreased pay or let go a portion of the department since the PD itself is at fault and not the taxpayer. [Actually the perp is at fault but because he has no $$$, it's back to sue the big pockets, not the real responsible party at fault for the death.] I thought that was usually not held in very high regard by ethical people myself.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top