Officer sued for NOT SHOOTING!

[gdowkpc]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Seems officers and departments are sued all the time for shooting people, but for not shooting?

Two sue Gresham police over car crash

The men say they were injured by a drunken driver because an officer fumbled a traffic stop

11/14/03

STUART TOMLINSON

Two Washington County men are suing the Gresham Police Department for injuries they suffered during a traffic stop that ended in a serious crash two years ago.

Michael Stewart, 22, of Tualatin and Joe Jeff Gerberg, 23, of Aloha were heading home from a bar on the night of Nov. 10, 2001, when Gerberg's car was broadsided by a car driven by Shane D. Martin, 26, of Southeast Portland.

Martin also is a defendant in the suit. He was convicted of assault and drunken driving in the crash and sentenced to 111/2 years in prison.

According to court documents filed by the attorney for Stewart and Gerberg, Gresham Officer Justin Pick was negligent during a traffic stop of two cars near Southeast Main Street and 162nd Avenue. Pick, 28, joined the department in March 1999.

Steven Scharfstein, the attorney for both men, said Pick pulled over two suspicious cars and parked his Chevrolet Tahoe between them. Martin's Oldsmobile was behind the Tahoe; another car was parked in front.

While Pick questioned the passengers in the front car, Martin sped away, nearly striking Pick.

Martin drove through a red light, striking Gerberg's Acura on the passenger side, where Stewart was sitting. Stewart suffered broken ribs, punctured lungs, a crushed pelvis, a severed urethra, brain trauma and severe facial cuts, the suit said.

Scharfstein said Stewart's medical bills totaled more than $400,000.

The suit seeks $1 million in damages for Stewart and $70,000 for Gerberg, who was less seriously injured.

The suit claims that Pick called for backup but didn't wait for other officers to arrive before conducting a field interview.

The suit further claims that Pick failed to use lethal force to stop Martin, even though circumstances were "appropriate to its use."

Scharfstein said Pick also neglected to park his Tahoe at an angle and that he should have conducted a felony stop because the Oldsmobile that Martin was driving was stolen.

Gresham City Attorney Susan Bischoff said the city's insurance carrier denied Stewart's claim in August 2002. Bischoff said the city had not been served with the lawsuit. Based on her investigation into the matter, she said, she found no evidence of police negligence

[hdpd.explorer k]

that is a bunch of b/s.

[soulhydration]

A bunch of crap. Damn Lawyers.

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by hdpd.explorer k
that is a bunch of b/s.

Why?

Taken at face value it seems that a cop didn't follow proper procedure during a stop, lost control of a suspect and as a direct result someone was injured.


Going strictly on the tiny amount of information in the first post, it certainly seems that there is a legitimate cause of action.


You should also keep in mind that "suing the cop" is not neccesarilly what it sounds like.

When you file a lawsuit for an injury, you file against any insurance companies that might have liability. You can always "stip them out" later.


It should not automatically be assumed that it's an action against the cop directly, as opposed to the municipality's insurance carrier.


Finally, people DO get hurt, they DO sometimes sue because of it, and just because the suit is "against" a cop does not automatically mean that it's a bad suit.

[Nminx]

Oh cmon Eric...."a cop didnt follow proper procedure during a stop, lost control of a suspect and as a direct result someone was injured."

I understand that you are taking things at face value and making an opinion based strictly on the information provided, but think for one second about the possibilities.

IE: Maybe the officer only had time to dive out of the way to avoid being hit and didnt have time to draw his gun.

Im sorry but there is absolutely no way to show a direct correlation between this officer failing to follow procedure and subsequently causing injuries to the public.

If there is...show me. Im ready for debate. :D

[rdp]

We are our own insurance company.....sorry, the money comes out of our budget not some insurance company's.

My policy says we can't shoot at a fleeing vehicle........

I am not so sure a subject fleeing in a stolen car would justify deadly force anyways......and even if you kill the driver, the car keeps going. Until they let us carry some large destructive devices and gives us authority to use them, we sometimes have no choice but to let the car go.

But we are only getting a sliver of the story too................

[greenlead]

It's against department procedure for us to shoot at cars.

[gdowkpc]

We just received an independent review that indicated shooting at moving cars is not 'best-practice' and is almost never effective. They said that an officer would be better served to jump out of the way instead of to shoot.

If this was the sole issue with this case, it is very weak. The officer is the one to decide what force to use when his own life is in danger. He would not know that anyone else was in danger after he went by. He would not have known until he saw that the car was running the red light and another vehicle was in the path. Deadly force probably would not have been justified and almost certainly would have been ineffective.

The officer was not chasing the suspect. The suspect did not have to run the light. Maybe he was just trying to get fast distance.

The officer decided not to use deadly force to defend himself. But that incident is seperate from the man running the red and striking someone. It is not reasonable for the officer to believe that someone was about to be seriously injured at the time of decision.

[greenlead]

That's what I'm thinking, gdowkpc.

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by Nminx


Oh cmon Eric...."a cop didnt follow proper procedure during a stop, lost control of a suspect and as a direct result someone was injured."
Yeah...? And...?


I understand that you are taking things at face value and making an opinion based strictly on the information provided...
That's where that sentence should have stopped.


...but think for one second about the possibilities.
What, like aliens from the planet nebulon were driving the getaway car?
Hey, if we want to start making stuff up, why not be creative.
Oh wait! I have an idea.
It's possible that...
The cop actually did screw up and the city is liable...?
Nahh, that NEVER happens, right?


Im sorry but there is absolutely no way to show a direct correlation between this officer failing to follow procedure and subsequently causing injuries to the public.
Sure there is. The lawyers just did it.
Didn't you read the article?


If there is...show me. I'm ready for debate.
Really?
You have more information that the rest of us aren't privy to?
Because all I see is that one articel, and based on what's written there, one of the possibilities is that the officer screwed up.
When you have more information, let me know.

[gdowkpc]

MY guess is that the city settles. Not because they did anything wrong, but because it's cheaper.

All the policy procedure violations that were described are designed for the safety of the officer, and not necessarily for the suspect's. And even had the policy been followed, there still would be not guarentees that the vehicle would not have fled. With no prior indications (and we don't know from this article) physically boxing in vehicles on a traffic stop is not done.

If the crux of the suit is based on the points mentioned in the article, I can't see it being successful. There may be more information that is critical to the case that gives it more merit that has not been reported.

[Swat1]

Hey gdowkpc, did you see today's Oregonian article about PPB and the assault cover-up?

What do you think?

Swat1*

[gdowkpc]

Glad I wasn't involved in it! ;)

Do you know why the Oregon State Police was formed? To fight the corruption in the Portland Police Bureau. We've been at it since 1851. There's a lot of tradition there!:rolleyes:

[Scruit]

BS lawsuit. Sometimes bad things happen and it's nobody's fault.

Shooting at the drive of a car headed towards you is not going to stop the car in time to save you. Jump out of the way!

I'd like to see the video. At what point did the officer have the justification to shoot, and at what point did the officer have the opportunity to shoot. (two different things) And did those moments overlap?

Maybe the officer was talking to the first person and the second car drove at the back of him and by the time the officer realised the car was moving it was past already... Not even the police can use deadly force to prevent an escape of a person who's guilty of a traffic violation.

And what if he went to the rear car fist and the first car fled?

And what if he never stopped the second car because he was busy with the first?

Sounds BS on the surface. I'd love to see the tape.

As an example of a good lawsuit in a traffic stop would be if the officer realised a driver was drunk and he decided to let him continue driving because he was 'almost home' and he caused an accident after he drove away.

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by Scruit
BS lawsuit. Sometimes bad things happen and it's nobody's fault.

Yes, they do. Car accidents often happen with nobody at fault.
That doesn't mean that there isn't any insurance claim to be made. Insurance is MEANT for accidents, even if nobody did anything wrong.


But to look at a situation where you have almost none of the facts and immediately call BS on it is just as silly as immediately assuming that the cop was at fault.