Posted on 06/09/2006 7:38:19 AM PDT by VRing
A Stockbridge couple whose home was mistakenly raided by Henry County Police last year as they sought a drug suspect is seeking $8 million in damages from the incident.
In a lawsuit filed last month in Superior Court against county officials and police, Roy and Belinda Baker say they were roused out of bed by police who used a battering ram to knock down their door and threw concussive grenades into their home around 1 a.m. Sept. 30.
“The Law Enforcement Defendants accosted the Bakers in the hallway to their bedroom, where they had been sleeping, and yelled at the Bakers, threatened, assaulted and unlawfully touched the Bakers, and placed the Bakers face down, at gunpoint ...” the suit says.
(Excerpt) Read more at henryherald.com ...
"Usually you get to redo the work or project"
Nope, I make a mistake the best thing that could happen is the building fire suppression system works and I only cause a few hundred thousand in damages. Lots of professions require perfection and over time procedures have been developed to ensure it. I see no reason why a raid like this should be any different.
It sounds as the judge had the address okay, but the swatties actually went to a different address.
Hmmm....seems a little hypocritical to accuse someone of something, while "Attempting to slander your opponent with name calling and insinuations"....."rather than arguing your position with facts" demonstrates clear hypocrisy in using the technique you unsuccessfully attempted to utilize to insult me.
Seems like you are one of those who has no factual argument, but rely on public touchy-feely phraseology to elicit sympathy with your rant. (p.s. I don't really give a "@#$#" about your dog problem, and it's hardly relevant or analogous to the discussion on this topic)
"I said the tax payers are the ones who are ultimately responsible"
First error of fact in your argument "responsible".
From Miriam Webster's On-line Dictionary"..."
"1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent
a committee responsible for the job"
The operative word here, and I'll type slowly for you, is "primary cause". A contorted or tortured reading of the Law will sensibly prove that the primary cause (no capital letters since you don't like them) cannot be the absent parites..aka, the taxpayer.
Use of capital letters for EMPHASIS is a commonly used method of re-inforcing the points, for those who are slow to grasp them, as opposed to using all caps (just pressing the cap lock key to make it simple to type).
Further, your grasp of the meaning of "responsible" and "fault" are based in common man-on-the-street parlance, not Legal terms (two totally different meanings in Law).
4. Fault -- one of two standards applies:
a) Negligence: failure to exercise ordinary care. A private person must prove this.
b) Actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. A public person or public official must prove this.
Synonyms: responsible, answerable, liable, accountable, amenable
These adjectives share the meaning obliged to answer, as for one's actions, to an authority that may impose a penalty for failure. Responsible often implies the satisfactory performance of duties or the trustworthy care for or disposition of possessions:
Answerable suggests a moral or legal responsibility subject to review by a higher authority: The court held the parents answerable for their minor child's acts of vandalism.
Liable may refer to a legal obligation, as to pay damages or to perform jury duty: Wage earners are liable to income tax.
Accountable especially emphasizes giving an account of one's discharge of a responsibility: "The liberal philosophy holds that enduring governments must be accountable to someone beside themselves" Walter Lippmann.
Amenable implies being subject to the control of an authority and therefore the absence of complete autonomy: "There is no constitutional tribunal to which [the king] is amenable" Alexander Hamilton. See Also Synonyms at reliable.
cul•pa•ble adj.
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at blameworthy.
I could go on and on with the intricacies of word-smithing, but it will not resonate, I'm sure. Rest assured, the Public (taxpayers) will not be called to the witness stand by either side, to defend their "responsibility" or "fault", but will be sent the bill for the Lawyers and their appropriation.
The bottom line, fault will be assigned by the Court, as will negligence. Responsibility and ultimate determination of the Payee will also be determined, but the named defendant(s) in the case, I assure you, will be the City (aka taxpayers), the County (aka, taxpayers), and any other deep pockets the Lawyer decides should shovel money at him, with a few crumbs for the offended party (the Plaintiffs).
That's the reality of today's Tort system: Lawyer enrichment at taxpayer/consumer expense.
As I've said, the actual guilty party in the mess is the chain-of-command and the irresponsible execution of a Warrant, but the taxpayer is the deep pockets.
the burden excuses it, ayup. if they have cooks who can't take the heat in the kitchen, well they need new cooks.
what is more likely is the budget will get reduced as increasing a tax levy substantially is politically difficult.
Common Sense has left the building........
Standard contingency fees seldom exceed 50%
starbucks gave me the wrong coffee. surely i'm entitled to at least $2mill for my pain and suffering.
Municipalities should have the right to recover any judgement from the individuals if they didn't act in a reasonable manner. Then there would be a deterrent, and the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook as bad.
They and their attorneys were quite unlikely to have plucked that number out of thin air, but rather arrived at it through a study of similar lawsuits. The startling initial number mostly serves to make news, which is a lot of what the victims want -- bad publicity for the offending entity. I would be surprised if this did NOT end with an "undisclosed" out of court settlement an order of magnitude less where nobody admits fault.
Which is why we need lawsuit reform.
"starbucks gave me the wrong coffee. surely i'm entitled to at least $2mill for my pain and suffering."
A clever response. Why would you post that? Just to show everyone your a$$? Mission accomplished!
No, nothing about the situation playing out like that needs reform. There is always the chance that the city will play nasty and actually force it to a trial, and the jury GRANTS them the full $8 million.
Obviously, you shoulda spilled it in your lap, and you could then have sought "just compensation" !
But still risky for the attorneys, as any number of things can explode an otherwise lucrative lawsuit. They can't pay their bills, and they go out of business.
"Everyone makes mistakes."
Yep, and if you are not a cop, you pay for them.
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.