If instead of relying on this rag for info, people read the New York Times, they would know that the law firm that sent the letter and the NYPD legal department have dropped the case. It was a form letter, no one bothered to inquire about how the vehicle was damaged, and as soon as they found out they withdrew the request for payment. It is really astonishing how carefully the article is written to create maximum indignation.
The REAL story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/nyregion/woman-charged-for-damages-to-police-car-that-struck-tamon-robinson.html?_r=0
But naturally, not many will bother to read it, they would rather get all self-righteous and scream and holler. /facepalm/
If all of the facts were inserted into the story it wouldn’t fit their narrative.
OK,so on the one hand you have the Post and on the other you have the Times.The pertinent questions are...1) did the dead guy attempt to steal?...2) if so,did he then attempt to flee from the police?....3) if so,was the cop acting in a lawful,reasonable way when the guy was struck?
If the answer to all three questions is "yes" then he,the dead guy,is legally responsible for the damage to the police car.Of course the City of New York might have been wise,for PR reasons,to "eat" the $700 under the circumstances even if it had the law on its side.But that's another matter.