Have a care Citizens. Things will get worse before they start getting better again...
Posted on 12/17/2010 9:51:53 PM PST by Orange1998
A dash cam video from the officer who shot and killed Native American woodcarver John T. Williams was released Friday, showing Williams ambling slowly across the street in a crosswalk before the officer opens fire.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=956_1292627716
(Excerpt) Read more at liveleak.com ...
Well, OK, you don’t like that one, here’s another one.
http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles-dui-lawsuit.asp
Again, I am not talking about wrongful termination, internal discipline or insubordination.
Again, I am talking about an officer losing his home in a civil action, due to on the job incidents, such as killing someone, excessive force, a bad shoot etc..
Here’s another one.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0172.htm
Again...go back and read very carefully.
Furthermore...for both you posted...what was the outcome?
=8-)
Would he get sued? Yes. Seen that. Would he be subject to department discipline? Yes. Seen that too. Held liable in a civil proceeding? Yes. Been there. Get his house and property taken in a civil proceeding? Seen that.
Again, I am not talking about wrongful termination, internal discipline or insubordination.
Again, I am talking about an officer losing his home in a civil action, due to on the job incidents, such as killing someone, excessive force, a bad shoot etc..
Could you provide a link for an on-duty incident, as mentioned above, that shows a an officer losing his home?
Again, I am talking about an officer losing his home in a civil action, due to on the job incidents, such as excessive force, a bad shoot etc..
Could you provide a link for an on-duty incident, as mentioned above, which shows a an officer losing his home?
Well, take a look at this one.
Our dept. recently informed us that if we acted outside the scope of our policies and procedures we may be facing being sued personally, the city won’t cover us.
And I believe the Chief in this story that was sued personally, and lost, was on duty when these incidents occured. Ordered to pay 2 mil out of his own pocket.
I provided the link. The police chief, who was on duty, accused of harassing another officer, was not covered by the city in the lawsuit and was ordered to pay 2 million dollars out of his own pocket.
Maybe I'm not being clear here.
Again, I am talking about an officer losing his home in a civil action, due to on the job incidents, such as excessive force, a bad shoot etc..
Could you provide a link THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS an on-duty incident, as mentioned above, which shows an officer losing his home?
Just one link will do.
Ya see my tag line?
OK, in this case the link says the officer may have to pay the $30K award out of his own pocket.
Is that clear enough for you?
Our dept. has warned us of the same thing happening to us.
Here it is, everybody can read it.
BALTIMORE — When police raided the wrong home, the fragile health of the man inside got worse. He sued the only police officer whose name he could get — the officer who was trying to help him.
WBAL-TV 11 News I-Team reporter Barry Simms said the city isn’t taking responsibility for what Officer Reginald Parker was doing in the wrong home and now Parker may be stuck paying thousands of dollars.
Michael Hinton, 56, was working on his computer when Baltimore City police officers busted down his front door in July 2003. An officer grabbed him and forced Hinton to the floor.
“I was terrified,” he said. “I was scared to death, holding their revolvers, pointing them at me.”
The incident aggravated Hinton’s heart condition and he was sent to the hospital. It was a mistake — Hinton was the wrong man.
Police found the real suspect in an upstairs apartment and Hinton sued.
Now, it’s not the city, but Parker who might have to pay. Hinton is defending Parker, saying he believes the city is backing out of its responsibility.
Parker tried to help Hinton by calling paramedics. But he was the only policeman named in the lawsuit and he may have to pay a $30,000 jury award Hinton won.
“He’s an employee of Baltimore police. He was on duty at the time. He did what his superiors told him to do,” Hinton said. “And you’re going to make him pay for it?”
Parker received a court summons, but in a sworn statement, said a supervisor told him to wait until other complaints about the case arrived. When the new complaints came in, he was to notify his supervisors and the police legal affairs office.
But there were no other complaints, and the summons expired — leaving him unprotected.
City solicitor Ralph Tyler said, “The city is not inclined to indemnify Officer Parker, because he failed to provide the city with timely notification of this lawsuit. As a result, Parker was defaulted by the court.”
“I think it’s absolutely horrible,” F.O.P president Fred Roussey said. “If anything, the city should step up to the plate and take responsibility for what’s going on there.”
If the city doesn’t, Roussey wonders what effect that could have on people considering jobs on the force.
“It would definitely cause them to second guess and say why would I want to come there if they don’t protect their officers when they make a mistake,” he said.
Simms reported that he was unable to talk to Parker, but his attorney, James Fields, said, “We remain in discussion and negotiation in an effort to reach a resolution that will be satisfying to all parties involved.”
Simms said the city did try to get the judge to reconsider the default judgment, but its motion was denied. Hinton’s attorneys have notified the officer they plan to garnish his wages.
They have learned the names of the other 7 officers involved and have filed lawsuits against them.
This article says he was SHOT IN THE SIDE AND THAT THE KNIFE WAS CLOSED.
You've seen that?
This is the 7th time I've asked you and you have not provided a single link showing an officer losing his home due to an on-duty action involving the public.
Again, I am talking about an officer losing his home in a civil action, due to on the job incidents, such as excessive force, a bad shoot etc..
Could you provide a link THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS an on-duty incident, as mentioned above, which shows an officer losing his home
See my tag line?
And maybe you haven’t read this link yet because it says the same thing:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0172.htm
Could you copy and paste that sentence?
Where does it say the officer lost his home in the law suit?
Could you copy and paste that sentence?
LOL!
Can’t you read? Or are you just playing games?
Officers can be held personally liable and sued, for 10’s of thousands, or millions of dollars, in the case I referenced, for their actions ON DUTY.
The chief in the case I referenced was sued, and lost. He was ordered to pay 2 million dollars. HE HAD TO SELL HIS HOUSE TO PAY THE LAWSUIT.
And it was an ON DUTY incident. Does it matter if it’s his house? His car? It’s his money.
Again...go back and read!!!
=8-)
You are one deceitful individual...
It’s doesn’t work on me pal..
Just one.
>>He chased the guy down.
>
>That is a good point. If I see a guy with a knife that is threatening me and I’m carrying a gun, I am not going to close the distance between him and me.
Let me be blunt.
To close the distance to the point where the knife’s effectiveness is reduced IS to be grappling with the man, and then you are nominally at the disadvantage because the knife can STILL cut at you while the two of you are fighting over it and your gun is well within its own ineffective range; in other words it is foolish.
If he IS threatening you with the knife, which in this particular case is not true, then you are ALREADY justified in using force to defend yourself up to and including shooting the man that is threatening you with bodily harm.
I was the Scoutmaster of Troop 54 leading our Venture Patrol on a hike thru some Chapparel in a state park in Los Angeles County, California. We had spent some time identifying various plants and flowers along the way. There was one we could not identify. I took one of the little flowers with me as we hiked so I could compare it to some photos in a nature book and identify it later.
I was leading the group as we emerged from the brush and onto a clearing. I heard “Drop it!” shouted several times from a woman I did not see. I had no idea who she was yelling at or what it was about.
When I finally saw the woman, she had her had on her gun in it’s holster on her waist. She was a park ranger. She was yelling at me!
I couldn’t understand what was happening. I don’t know how long it took, but I finally realized she was instructing me to drop that flower I was carrying.
Of course there is some rule that you cannot take anything from the parklands. But a flower?
And this brought her hand to her gun?
I am in a Scout uniform with 5 young Scouts also in uniform.
Was she going to shoot?
Ask the guy holding a water nozzel shot 20 times(twice with a shotgun) by Long Beach Police responding to a citizen phone call of a man with a gun.
Ask the overweight woodcarver in this posted article.
They know, or they did know for a few seconds before they expired.
LEO’s shoot. Then, they take the time to see what they have done. If they THINK they are endangered, they have the green light to kill. The truth has nothing to do with it. It’s all about their perception of the situation. Confusion, from whatever source, is acceptable justification for the ultimate solution. 9mm, 45 ACP, whatever. It’s justifiable and it’s done everyday somewhere in the USA.
You’re a perfect example of why most Americans nowadays no longer trust those in law enforcement.
I’ve posted links, and articles of cops being sued individually, not being protected by the city.
The last one, that you apparently didn’t read, was for 30K.
If you want to split hairs on where the money will come from, whether it be a cops savings, his house having to be sold, his wages garnished, what difference does it make?
Until the link actually says “home” your going to say that officers aren’t being held personally accountable?
Weak.
It’s a fact that police officers can be held personally accountable for actions or inactions. They have been ordered to pay from their own pockets.
The Chief I referenced had to sell two of his houses to cover the lawsuit.
If people don’t trust that, well, so be it.
Did you read 263? The officer’s wages were garnished. To the tune of 30K.
“Hinton’s attorneys have notified the officer they plan to garnish his wages.
They have learned the names of the other 7 officers involved and have filed lawsuits against them.”
Is that clear enough? Now 7 more are possibly going to be paying out of their own pockets too.
241 posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010 9:34:22 AM by Cap'n Crunch (Rush Limbaugh, the Winston Churchill of our time)
YOU said in #241 cops get their *homes* taken in civil actions, and stated you've seen this.
If was requested you provide a link.
All you did is post links from mostly internal matters, cop vs cop, wrongful termination suits etc...You posted one link where a cop might face a 30k law suit...
You were asked repeatedly to show where a cop lost his home due to an ON THE JOB bad shoot etc....
You couldn't and didn't.
Overpaid cops in CA own $700,000 homes and in many states own homes worth half a million an more...
More cops here than anywhere...Where are your cop looses home links?
Not one of your links show cops homes being seized due to an *on the job* civil suit for a bad shoot etc....
Again, you're a perfect example of why most Americans no longer trust those in law enforcement.
There’s a link. Cops can be held personally accountable and sued.
Don’t trust me if you don’t want to.
Last column of the article I just posted.
CONCLUSION
The threat of personal liability is one of many risks
associated with the law enforcement profession. An officer’s
discretionary decision to arrest or search inevitably increases
the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. While this risk can be
minimized by comprehensive departmental policies, thorough
training, and attentive managerial controls, officers ultimately
have a personal responsibility to insure that their conduct
conforms to constitutional requirements. The qualified immunity
defense does not excuse clearly unconstitutional or offensive
police misconduct. It does, however, offer generous protection
to conscientious officers who make objectively reasonable
mistakes. The availability of a qualified immunity defense
should be encouragement to responsible officers that they can
perform their vital law enforcement functions without a constant
fear of personal liability.
Deceitful cops and other government agents can ruin your life in the blink of an eye.
Leave the cop calling for the old ladies that need baby sitting.. ...It's better to avoid them if at all possible.
1. The story begs a followup - it’s not over yet.
2. They’re going after a wage garnishment - not his life, savings, home, etc. In other words, the proxy is the city.
3. The officer is not being sued - the city is - but the city is attempting to default onto its employee the officer - which quite frankly is suspicious. In my opinion the officer should turn around and sue the city as well.
4. Hinton himself acknowledges that he is suing the city - and wasn’t expecting if fall upon the officer. In order to sue you have to name the parties involved - in this case the officer and the city that employs them. That goes without saying.
Like I said Cap’n Crunch...read!!!
=8-)
“Might not have a constituional duty, but guess who still gets sued and GOES TO JAIL for not doing his duty?”
You know you were possibly believable until you said, “GOES TO JAIL” caps added by me. If the cop ignors this guy and he goes down the street and commits mass murder the cop is NOT going to jail. You take all your credibility away by claiming otherwise.
Oh, since I could only produce one instance of a cop losing his *home* that means it doesn’t, or can’t happen? I guess 30K is pocket change?
Here, maybe this will appease you.
A cop I know had to sell 2 of his houses to cover a lawsuit when he was not covered by the citys insurance. He was found GUILTY and ordered to pay 2 MILLION DOLLARS by the court, even though the incident stemmed from an on duty incident.
The reason more cops are not held personally liable is the city has the deep pockets and lawyers prefer big money over cop chump change.
But the times they are a changin’. The facts is the facts, cops can, and are, and will be in the future, sued for actions and inactions, while on or off duty. They can be held personally accountable and lose their own property, money, etc. in these lawsuits.
Have enough hairs been split now?
You’re a fraud..
4 shots in the back? Rooky cop?
Bad shoot. No excuses for this one...
Four shots in the right side.
Cops with two homes I believe... ...
I know cops that make $175,000 per year..Other places they are retiring millionaires...
I know others that retired a 47 years old earning $80,000 per YEAR in government retirement pensions for the rest of their lives! Firefighters too...lol
Ya can't make this stuff up...
It should.
Is it out of the realm of possibility? I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility for a cop to go to jail for not taking action when a ‘mass murderer’ walks down the street killing people in front of him. He should. And the people here would certainly be calling for it.
Perhaps I was a bit loose with my language, I admit to that.
I have seen a number of cops I work with go to jail, for their actions. It is possible that they could go for their inactions as well.
But, it is a fact that officers can be held personally responsible and liable. And as I said before, the reason more officers aren’t held personally responsible is most act within the scope of their duties, and, lawyers want the cities to pay, they have the money, the individual cop, not so much.
I’m not willing to risk being personally sued (as several officers on my dept. may be now).
Lastly, shame on me for using some flippant language on a website chock full of people who hate the police.
Lesson learned by me.
Never assume deceit when stupidity isn’t ruled out. It’s unfair to the stupid.
It’s due to cops like you I tell people don’t ever call the cops unless your being attacked by AIDs infected cannibals...
Deceitful cops and other government agents can ruin your life in the blink of an eye.
Leave the cop calling for the old ladies that need baby sitting.. ...It’s better to avoid them if at all possible.
Great advice. don’t even call if your being attacked by aids infected cannibals, since now that I know I have no duty to protect you and won’t lose a dime if I don’t, well, what the heck. I’ll just retire in a year, draw my 100K a year pension and go fishing.
Well, the guy repeatedly alleged that cops get their homes seized as a result of civil suits, clearly implying this as a result of on the job actions such as bad shoots, excessive force etc...Yet he could not provide a single link to support that.
Insanity!
Have a care Citizens. Things will get worse before they start getting better again...
Oh please...If ya protected people, there wouldn't be any crime...lol
As it is, the gangsters are controlling half the cities, the state, city and county insiders themselves are corrupt to the bone, all within a country crawling with tens of millions of illegal aliens...
You guys are doing a great job protecting us!
:o
>>....So, like I said, I’m witholding judgement until I see the reason for the officer’s stop. If he had a legitimate reason for stopping Mr. Williams, then what unfolded may be ruled justified. If not, then he will have a hard time not facing charges.
>
>Whoa! The reason for the stop is irrelevant. Whether the officer’s life was in danger is relevant. Are you suggesting premeditation?
In the video there’s something in the officer’s hand when he passes in front of his dash-cam, it’s too blurry for me to make out but in posts 225 & 226 Cap’n Crunch, who previously claimed to be a police officer, said it *IS* the officer’s sidearm. If it is then that would be HIGHLY indicative that this IS indeed premeditated murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.