Posted: 8/4/2010 1:44:32 PM EDT
|
Handcuffed and Running...FAIL
Handcuffed Ga. Man Killed Crossing Interstate Posted: 3:48 pm EDT August 4, 2010 Updated: 4:33 pm EDT August 4, 2010 ATLANTA –– Louisiana State Police said a 39-year-old Georgia man was handcuffed and trying to run across Interstate 10 when a pickup truck hit and killed him. State Trooper Russell Graham said that Walter Ellison Jr., of Rex, Ga., was a passenger in a tractor-trailer stopped by West Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies early Tuesday. He said he doesn't know why the rig was stopped, or why Ellison was handcuffed. Maj. Jerome Fontenot, of the Sheriff's Office, said he cannot comment. He did say the driver was not arrested. Graham said no charges have been filed in the accident. He said the parish coroner's office pronounced Ellison dead at the scene. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Darwin wins again. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile indeed however I my spidie sense sees a large settlement for the dead guys family, failure to care and control for a prisoner and all. J- And that's why tort reform should exist. The officers didn't push the guy or force him to run into traffic. Hell the driver should sue the shit outta the dead guys estate! -SS Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Darwin wins again. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile indeed however I my spidie sense sees a large settlement for the dead guys family, failure to care and control for a prisoner and all. J- And that's why tort reform should exist. The officers didn't push the guy or force him to run into traffic. Hell the driver should sue the shit outta the dead guys estate! -SS Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Lawsuit if the guy had been in the back of a car and the officer got into a crash, or leaves him un-secured on the side of the road in a dangerous manner.....when dude tries to run, handcuffed, from the police and gets whacked by a motorist......thats his own dumb fault. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Darwin wins again. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile indeed however I my spidie sense sees a large settlement for the dead guys family, failure to care and control for a prisoner and all. J- I suspect either S&W or Peerless will be named as co-defendants. 
|
|
So a guy is in your custody and get run over and killed and u guys think the is no liability? Whether he ran or his own volition or not a rather moot point. I would think that whether u actually chased him would be important. If u stand there and say "huh look at this dumb fuck" u are screwed but if u actually do what u can to protect him u may get out unscathed. Look at it this way some one hangs themselve in jail. 100percent their action but the dept IS gonna get sued. J- Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Darwin wins again. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile indeed however I my spidie sense sees a large settlement for the dead guys family, failure to care and control for a prisoner and all. J- That was my immediate thought... "OH CRAP!" They're gonna say: The officer "shoulda ______, he coulda_______, if he woulda________, then poor Johnny, just misunderstood, would still be here today. |
|
Quoted:
So a guy is in your custody and get run over and killed and u guys think the is no liability? Whether he ran or his own volition or not a rather moot point. I would think that whether u actually chased him would be important. If u stand there and say "huh look at this dumb fuck" u are screwed but if u actually do what u can to protect him u may get out unscathed. Look at it this way some one hangs themselve in jail. 100percent their action but the dept IS gonna get sued. J- Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Actually I agree with you that the department is gonna get sued, no doubt. My disagreement with your statement is as follows: If I just let you run I am less likely to be responsible since you are not running from me, you are running on your own and more responsible for your actions. I have been through several officer safety classes and interdiction classes where you never chase someone across an interstate or similar busy highway. The theory of let them go and take warrants on the backside is one of the common threads of thought. We all want/ and do chase the bad guy for a multitude of reasons, mainly P.O.P.. Its much like a vehicle pursuit I am not responsible if I terminate and the dumb ass contunes on and crashes. I think there will be a judgement against the PD but I think it bodes better for the officer that he/she wasnt in an active foot pursuit at the time of his demise. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So a guy is in your custody and get run over and killed and u guys think the is no liability? Whether he ran or his own volition or not a rather moot point. I would think that whether u actually chased him would be important. If u stand there and say "huh look at this dumb fuck" u are screwed but if u actually do what u can to protect him u may get out unscathed. Look at it this way some one hangs themselve in jail. 100percent their action but the dept IS gonna get sued. J- Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Actually I agree with you that the department is gonna get sued, no doubt. My disagreement with your statement is as follows: If I just let you run I am less likely to be responsible since you are not running from me, you are running on your own and more responsible for your actions. I have been through several officer safety classes and interdiction classes where you never chase someone across an interstate or similar busy highway. The theory of let them go and take warrants on the backside is one of the common threads of thought. We all want/ and do chase the bad guy for a multitude of reasons, mainly P.O.P.. Its much like a vehicle pursuit I am not responsible if I terminate and the dumb ass contunes on and crashes. I think there will be a judgement against the PD but I think it bodes better for the officer that he/she wasnt in an active foot pursuit at the time of his demise. I THINK... the difference in this instance anyway... is the person was already in custody. The fact that they are in your custody, as was always drilled into me anyway, means anything that happens to them from that point on, YOU are responsible. So in this particular situation, I think it would be in your favor that you chased them in an attempt to keep them from being hit by a car, tripping & breaking their neck, ect., ect. But either way, I think it is going to be unpleasant for you for awhile at best. Of course, following your reasoning, you could say you did not chase them, because you did not want to cause them to run across the highway. As always, it comes down to articulating what you did and why. Bottom line... they are going to say YOU cuffed him, and he died. If YOU did something else, would that have caused a different outcome? Is what you did (or didn't) do normal & accepted, and would other officers in the same situation have done the same thing. The only sure thing in MY MIND... is there will likely be lots of "Monday morning quarterbacking" and a lawsuit. AND.... I hope I never find myself in such a situation. For me... this sort of thing is the cause of any stress I feel doing this sort of work. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So a guy is in your custody and get run over and killed and u guys think the is no liability? Whether he ran or his own volition or not a rather moot point. I would think that whether u actually chased him would be important. If u stand there and say "huh look at this dumb fuck" u are screwed but if u actually do what u can to protect him u may get out unscathed. Look at it this way some one hangs themselve in jail. 100percent their action but the dept IS gonna get sued. J- Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Actually I agree with you that the department is gonna get sued, no doubt. My disagreement with your statement is as follows: If I just let you run I am less likely to be responsible since you are not running from me, you are running on your own and more responsible for your actions. I have been through several officer safety classes and interdiction classes where you never chase someone across an interstate or similar busy highway. The theory of let them go and take warrants on the backside is one of the common threads of thought. We all want/ and do chase the bad guy for a multitude of reasons, mainly P.O.P.. Its much like a vehicle pursuit I am not responsible if I terminate and the dumb ass contunes on and crashes. I think there will be a judgement against the PD but I think it bodes better for the officer that he/she wasnt in an active foot pursuit at the time of his demise. I THINK... the difference in this instance anyway... is the person was already in custody. The fact that they are in your custody, as was always drilled into me anyway, means anything that happens to them from that point on, YOU are responsible. So in this particular situation, I think it would be in your favor that you chased them in an attempt to keep them from being hit by a car, tripping & breaking their neck, ect., ect. But either way, I think it is going to be unpleasant for you for awhile at best. Of course, following your reasoning, you could say you did not chase them, because you did not want to cause them to run across the highway. As always, it comes down to articulating what you did and why. Bottom line... they are going to say YOU cuffed him, and he died. If YOU did something else, would that have caused a different outcome? Is what you did (or didn't) do normal & accepted, and would other officers in the same situation have done the same thing. The only sure thing in MY MIND... is there will likely be lots of "Monday morning quarterbacking" and a lawsuit. AND.... I hope I never find myself in such a situation. For me... this sort of thing is the cause of any stress I feel doing this sort of work. Yep custody is the issue (and I know this for a fact as I had a guy run infront of a truck on a chase and never got sued). The issue is that the guy is in custody and by "allowing" him to get away and killed you failed to protect him, simple as that. J- Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
| I have had a properly handcuffed prisoner run from me that I was in the process of escorting to the car. It happens. In my case, no harm done, 'cept to the BG's bod when I tackled him on gravel. Things happen. Subject behaviour elicits an appropriate officer response, then the officer involved should be OK. I hope. In this case, I doubt that the officer told the BG to run in front of the truck and assisted him to do so, so I doubt that there is any sort of absolute liability; but that's as far as I will go with my monday morning quarterbacking. My thoughts are with the officer and the family of the BG. As for the BG, self inflicted as far as I'm concerned. |