Court ponders police chase liability

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by lurker

"Would you like jelly or preserves with that?" ..any liberal artz major.

Spin

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Actually, it doesn't piss me off at all. If you look at what this case is actually about instead of what is "spinned" as, it is a good case.

as i see it, the dude used the car as a weapon and endangered others without help from the police department. when one does something wrong he opens a door and you have to accept whatever comes through it. In this case he got paralyzed and wants the police to pay for things caused by his action.

[TexKan]

The sweet piece is - he blamed the officer (who was just doin his job of gettin the bad guys) put others (including the officer) in danger. Everyone came out unhurt but him so now he's going after the officer and got biotch slapped by the court system which often times biotch slaps the officers............... poetic justice as I see it. The officer had (I'm sure) a paid attorney but the perp probably didn't. I feel sorry for what happened to him but sometimes ya get what ya ask for! Not a big loss to the sports world or anything! He'll go on any disablitiy he can get and probably deal drugs from his crib. I don't see this guy makin a difference and spreadin the lesson that it's better to follow the rules.

[Flying Dutchman]

The law is without emotion, and needs to be that way. I see alot of the arguments here as being based upon emotion, not the law. I do not feel sorry for this puke in any way. Regardless if he started the chase, which he did, the outcome is what matters.


Obviously Wordy you have never been involved in a car chase. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that most law enforcement personel hate and do not like car chases. They are not fun.

By your own statement you contradict your own arguement in that if someone else was hurt then the law enforcement is liable, suggesting that they have as much, if not more fault, than the person who committed the crime.

Law enforcement is a branch of the government. Their duty and job is to protect the safety of the community in which they serve. With that responsibility comes the "shit happens" factor. If damages are caused specifically by their actions then they are liable to pay for such damages. If they have to shoot at a suspect, and a round goes into a house and kills an innocent bystander, then they are liable for those damages. Does not mean they are wrong or negligent, but their actions directly caused the damage. In this case the officer's action directly caused the accident. You cannot play the "what if game" because it is a double edged sword. This person could have hurt somebody.....or his car could have overheated and stopped on it's own, or run out of gas. What the officer did was right, he stopped the car. Unfortunately, it hit a pole. They are still liable for the damages caused. If the guy would have lost control of the car on his own, then they would not be liable.
If some guy breaks into your house and gets hurt, and sues, you hopefully have insurance that covers that. He can only sue you if YOUR actions were wrong and caused him to be hurt. If he breaks in through a window and you immediately shoot him, you can argue you or your family was at risk and you had to defend YOURSELF. If he breaks in, grabs your tv and tries to leave, and you shoot him then you are liable because he posed no threat to you, only your tv (in the eyes of the law). ( I say shoot him, reload, shoot again and put a knife near him personally).

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

If he breaks in, grabs your tv and tries to leave, and you shoot him then you are liable because he posed no threat to you, only your tv (in the eyes of the law). ( I say shoot him, reload, shoot again and put a knife near him personally).

That first part of this quote varies state to state. You also need to separate criminal liability from financial liability but in Indiana, Georgia, and South Carolina (where I have experience in this situation) I would not be charged with a crime for attacking an intruder in my home.

As to your shoot him, reload, shoot again comment. Many a lawyer has told me and others, that should I ever injure someone with a car, to go hit them again because it's cheaper to pay a claim for killing them than it is for crippling them. Not that I ever had the chance to try to the theory out.

[Quietly]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

This should come as no surprise to anybody, this is where our society has come too. We blame McDonalds and sue them for our kids being fat, when we are the ones buying them the food and getting it for them. We blame McDonalds for having their coffee to hot, instead of the idiot who put the cup in their lap to begin with. We blame Twinkies for murder, car manufacturers for making gas hogs.......hell, we make it more of a sin and health risk to go after a person smoking outside a resteraunt instead of making sure the cook washes his hands after wiping his ass and cooking our food. So now people want to blame the police for chasing someone, instead of blaming the person being chased.
Sad world we live in.

I couldn't agree more, and I'll go one step further: It seems as though ore and more people are trying to duck responsibility for their actions (or maybe we're just hearing about more cases of this phenomenon), and I don't think it can be blamed on liberalism or any other politics. I think people have just started to assume that nothing is truly their fault as long as they can blame it on something or someone else.

To some extent, it's human nature to try and shift the blame when we get in trouble (why else did we invent the "the dog ate my homework" excuse?), but I think this instinct has reached epidemic proportions. No one is to blame for anything anymore; it's all someone else's fault. (which means someone is still to blame, just not the person making the statement.)

I have the highest respect for people who, when they make a mistake, stand up, admit it and accept the consequences without trying to duck them. They may not be heroes in the world's eyes, but at least they're trying hard to be decent human beings.

[lurker]

..... and when they offer a solution, or a path to rectification, they are men among Men.