Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roofer mistaken for sniper settles with county
Daily Breeze ^ | July 20, 2005 | Larry Altman

Posted on 07/20/2005 8:49:43 AM PDT by holymoly

Man who was shot by deputies during a Harbor Gateway shootout gets $70,000 for his injuries.

A roofer mistakenly shot by sheriff's deputies during a chaotic gunbattle in Harbor Gateway last year has been awarded $70,000.

The county Claims Board approved the settlement on Monday for Ricardo Oliva, who was holding a mop while working atop a building. Deputies suspected he might be a sniper preparing to shoot them.

"He was very lucky and gives daily blessings to himself and his family that his life was spared," said Oliva's attorney, Steven Lerman. "He is a good guy and was basically in the wrong place at the wrong time."

A day after the March 31, 2004, shooting, Sheriff's Department officials called the shooting of Oliva an "unfortunate accident" at the conclusion of a chase in which the driver jumped out of his car and began firing at deputies with an assault weapon.

Deputies had been following Salvador Mosqueda, 32, from Carson after his mother said he was suicidal and had threatened his girlfriend. On Normandie Avenue at Torrance Boulevard, he began shooting at officers with a rifle capable of firing 100 rounds in a minute.

Deputies returned fire and killed him.

Sheriff's officials admitted from the beginning that three deputies who heard the shots but could not see the gunfire from the other side of a building confused roofers atop Melody Liquor for gunmen.

They fired, wounding Oliva.

"The sheriff's deputies, believing Mr. Oliva was a sniper involved in the shooting that had just occurred, fired at him, striking him twice in the arm," the Claims Board report said.

"After he was removed from the roof, the sheriff's deputies learned that he was a roofer and was using a long-handled hot mop on the roof."

The Claims Board report, written by Assistant County Counsel Roger H. Granbo, said that although the person on the roof with a mop could have been perceived as a threat, a jury "could find that the sheriff's deputies' actions were unreasonable under the circumstances."

The settlement, the report said, would save litigation costs and avoid a larger payout.

Lerman called the deputies' actions a "comedy of errors"

"He was a victim of inappropriate conduct by the sheriff's deputies," Lerman said. "He still has scars and difficulty with his arm."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; donutwatch; fustercluck; leosgonewild; mop; roof; roofer; shot; sniper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Hegemony Cricket

For the good of the mopper the sniper was a lousey shot. This does not make me feel good knowing sniper are allowed to be such poop shots and not identify their targets any better than that.


41 posted on 07/20/2005 10:24:46 AM PDT by handy old one (It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims. Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: RHINO369; Fierce Allegiance
If the woman in the nexy cubicle...

Just how "nexy" is she??

}^)

43 posted on 07/20/2005 10:27:22 AM PDT by The SISU kid (Hit ‘em in the funny-bone, it’s where they expect it least.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

The Deputies were being shot at.

It sounds like more than one of them mistook the guy for a person with a gun.

It sounds like his injurys are superficial.

$70,000 likely covers his medical expenses, legal fees, and pays for his time off work. He likely even ended up with a bit to compensate him for the pain he endured.

The deputies screwed up, but there was no harmful intent, and with a guy committing suicide by cop and firing lots of rounds, it's likely there were a lot of echos and sounded like they were being fired on from different directions.

The Sheriff's department is right to pay for the costs their mistake resulted in. The roofer deserves our sympathy, but he doesn't deserve a huge check so he never has to work again.

It sounds like a fair and reasonable settlement to me.


44 posted on 07/20/2005 10:33:46 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The SISU kid

LOL, but I am not one who can rag on anybody about typo's


45 posted on 07/20/2005 10:36:57 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (This ain't your granddaddy's America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: petpeeve
Another lesson to teach our children...Never, never, never, whatever you do, pick up a mop!! Danger, danger, danger.

It's a wonder they didn't sue the mop manufacturer and force them to put a warning label on all mops.

46 posted on 07/20/2005 10:39:54 AM PDT by RedWhiteBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RedWhiteBlue

"Beware...product may take on an assumed identity. Never take near roof ledges, open stairwells...fall out may contain deadly force." (Is it bad to have too much fun with this??)


47 posted on 07/20/2005 10:50:59 AM PDT by petpeeve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays; RHINO369; Fierce Allegiance; EggsAckley; Eric in the Ozarks; linkinpunk; Skooz; ...

True justice does not have a profit margin. Our legal lotto system is a very recent perversion, the work of evil Democrats funded by evil lawyers. By current standards, the injured party did not get his lotto payout, nor did his lawyer, but he was compensated fairly and justice was served.


48 posted on 07/20/2005 11:14:10 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

Lubbock SWAT team.


49 posted on 07/20/2005 11:27:43 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kx9088

Kalistan


50 posted on 07/20/2005 11:30:01 AM PDT by null and void (I'm not a good photographer, only 50% of my shots are usable. They call me "The Half-Bad Prints"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: null and void

That one was already on my list, it's nice not have to add a new one for a change.


51 posted on 07/20/2005 11:35:13 AM PDT by kx9088
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: The SISU kid

52 posted on 07/20/2005 11:35:43 AM PDT by evets (You're welcome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
Hi Reeses-

If we're getting to the point where officers are excused for shooting innocent folks holding utilitarian mops & brooms because they somehow resemble rifles, we've REALLY got a problem on our hands.

Don't fall for the bait being given by statists posing as conservatives.

~ Blue Jays ~

53 posted on 07/20/2005 11:41:00 AM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

" he began shooting at officers with a rifle capable of firing 100 rounds in a minute."

They just had to get that in there didn't they.


54 posted on 07/20/2005 11:45:02 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
The "legal lotto system" has nothing to do with the fact that this innocent man was SHOT by the police for committing no greater crime than holding a broom and doing his job.

This is not comparable to egregious excess of frivolous lawsuits. The man could have been killed and most certainly suffered great pain and outrageous medical expenses, not to mention missing long periods of work.

He was gipped.
55 posted on 07/20/2005 11:53:20 AM PDT by Skooz (Political Correctness will eventually destroy America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert

LOL.......Naw they'd have shot two of their own before they hit this guy....:o)


56 posted on 07/20/2005 11:58:04 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: null and void

ANd some folks are AGAINST tort reform.... heck - in your case, that was just plain stupid. What sort of judge/jury would make such an award? A jury full of prospective "victims".......


57 posted on 07/20/2005 11:58:21 AM PDT by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays

I think they guy deserved a lot more than $70K, but I don't think it should have come from the pocked of taxpayers. It should come directly from the police officer's own pockets - even if that means going to their pension fund. It's time the actual people responsible are brought to justice - not the taxpayers.


58 posted on 07/20/2005 12:01:02 PM PDT by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

Maybe they were worried he might "clean their clock".
Sorry.....


59 posted on 07/20/2005 12:07:46 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
The officers made a mistake. It happens to all of us. They used good aim but poor judgment. It has been my experience that police are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They have been known to shoot the wrong people, which is why I no longer call 911 as my first option.

When mistakes happen, the injured party should be compensated. But they should not profit from their misfortune. That isn't justice.

60 posted on 07/20/2005 12:07:52 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson