Officer sued for NOT SHOOTING!

[Scruit]

Then give me the facts. I go by the facts that I have, and the fects I have say BS.

Just because they have insurance doesn't mean suing the police is a trivial thing. They only have insurance because people sue them.

You can look at any situation and use hindsight to pick holes in the actions of people involved. That doesn't mean it's fair to blame the officer unless what he did was so stupid that it was objective obvious what would result. I don't think that talking to car 1 first would obviously result in car 2 running away...


And I don't get it... If the officer had been chasing the vehicle and caused the crash then they would have been sued. And when he doesn't chase the vehicle he gets sued. By failing to shoot the perp he gets sued. If he HAD shot the perp it woudl have been "Cop shoots speeder!" and he'd get sued.

Holy crap, can we quit suing the cops for everything they do? These people know a jury won't support them, so they bully the dept into a settlement instead. And those depts who don't have insurance now cannot afford all the officers/equipment they need. Those who HAVE insurance have to pay higher premiums and then cannot afford all the officers and equipment they need.

And if the dept had been sued from a previous case and the driver has never been pulled over and hiot the guy in the intersection, then the police would get sued for not having enough manpower. And if they have enough manpower at the cost of equipment then they get sued for having bad equipment.

When will it end?

So why not sue the driver?

[rdp]

Because they know not to go after the party at fault if they have no money. They want deep pockets..........crackheads have no money.

[gdowkpc]

We already knew that. The point is, accountability is placed more heavily on the one that was tasked to prevent it than the person that caused it. It doesn't balance.

[realpolice]

Well, I have to intervene with my 2 cents. In almost every accident, someone is at fault, someone and/or some action caused it, weather it's mechanical, bad choice, etc. Give me a scenario and I'll tell you who's at fault and why.

Also, I think these suits are complete bs, this one as well. I shot a guy while running out of the way of a truck and they drilled me on "why did you shoot, why did you shoot?" "Why didn't you just get out of the way", "you didn't have to shoot!" But no matter what, it's always the "officer's fault."

There's also no law that says an officer "must" use lethal force, rather, "may" use lethal force. That's ridiculous.

[gdowkpc]

Originally posted by realpolice
Well, I have to intervene with my 2 cents. In almost every accident, someone is at fault, someone and/or some action caused it, weather it's mechanical, bad choice, etc. Give me a scenario and I'll tell you who's at fault and why.

I took a course called "Traffic Enforcemet for the 21st Century". They said that 85% of all collisions are due to driver error. 10% are road engineering issues, and only 5% are mechanical failure.

I am mixed on whether they should be called accidents or collisions. I usually always call then collisions. But they are accidents if nobody does it on purpose. You can still be at fault although your actions were unintentional. That's what accidents are.

But some argue that people intentionally break the traffic law that would have prevented the collision, therefore, it's not an accident.

Pushing it, I think.

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by Scruit
Then give me the facts. I go by the facts that I have, and the facts I have say BS.

What fact would those be?

Did you read a different post than I did?

[Scruit]

I am going by the facts listed in this post.

[EricTheBald]

So was I. From the facts given, it looks like the officer might have screwed up.

It does happen, you know.

[Kenpokev]

Sooner or later the case will reach some form of settlement. Attorney's fees are often granted, however they aren't always audited. Somebody's insurer is likely to pay the plaintiff's attorney, who may or may not separate the fees for each action. The attorney may in fact know his case is weak against the officer, but the strategy is usually sue everyone, settle it out later.

Ah the law...

[realpolice]

Originally posted by EricTheBald
So was I. From the facts given, it looks like the officer might have screwed up.

It does happen, you know.

I'm curious, how does it "look" like the officer screwed up? There's no law that says an officer "must" shoot or use lethal force, but rather it's "may." There's also no law on how an officer is to position his cruiser, I mean that's just ridiculous. The officer didn't "cause" this to happen; the criminal did. It's going to come down to this in my opinion/experience: the suit is going to have to prove that the officer "caused" the incident; but that's impossible. He didn't put the car in gear and hit the gas. Also, they're gonna have to show that the officer's actions were extremely negligent, and that's just not gonna happen, based on what we read. But, I could be wrong, but I have no doubt in my mind this officer will not lose.

[GPD_33835]

This is Officer Justin Pick of the Gresham (Oregon) Police Department. So long after the fact, I don't know that anybody will read this or care. It is humorous to me that some would consider I had some fault in this event because the Plaintiff's attorney alleged "mistakes" and assumed I did not follow Department General Orders.

Here is the deal. I spot two suspicious vehicles leaving an apartment complex in a high crime area in my beat. I follow them and get them speeding so I make the stop. I swing into the opposing lane on a two lane road and activate my lights. Both vehicles yield to the shoulder; the rear car stopping immediatley and causing a gap between it and the first. I park in between them. I call out the plates on the stop and neither is listed as stolen. While talking to the driver of the lead car while cover is rolling, the rear car guns it and buzzes the fog line. I dive against the car to get out of the way. The car accelerating away covers several city blocks and blows a stale read light causing the crash. I release the first car and go to check the crash and give aid.

Why did I not shoot the car that I perceived to be trying to run me down? Because not only did need to get out of the way, but shooting a vehicle in motion is unlikely to make it stop and not run me over. Additionally, when considering the backdrop for a round fired down range I was looking at a row of single family residences facing the street. So...just because lethal force is justified does not mean it is required; which is what the lawsuit was suggesting.

As for the allegations of my wrongdoing. I was not found guilty of violating any procedures. Infact, I was not even investigated for any violation through IA.

The guy who ran had a Felony warrant out for Escape as he had fled a DOC facility. He was later convicted for assault and attempt assault crimes against me and the people from the car he hit.

It came out in procedings that the people injured in the crash sued becasue the driver was Driving Uninsured and the medical costs were substantial; they just needed to try to lay blame on somebody other than themself or the guy who actually caused the crash by his actions because he was a mope.

As for the thoughts that the City would just settle.....um, NO! The civil case moved forward and was eventually thrown out by the Judge as given the actual facts of the case he deemed it to be baseless and without merit.

[fatboyjim154]

Welcome I'm glad to hear it right for once and for once this is a good reason to resurect a long dead thread.

Get yourself verified as LEO through one of the moderators.

Jim

[Kimble]

GPD_33835,

Let's start your membership here by following the site's rules, namely:

1) Don't resurrect threads that have been long dead. You wouldn't continue a conversation after everyone else has left the room, would you?

2) If you're a cop, get verified. Our site does not allow members to claim to be LEOs without being verified as such.