Posted on 01/31/2016 8:29:51 AM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
This is one of the more unusual (and disturbing) news items to pop up over the weekend. You probably recall the story of 19 year old Chicago resident Quintonio LeGrier, who was shot and killed by officer Robert Rialmo during a domestic disturbance call. LeGrier, who may have suffered from mental illness, came out of the residence with a baseball bat, ignored multiple orders to stand down and was shot. Unfortunately, one of the rounds fired by Rialmo was a "through and through" shot which passed through LeGrier and went on to strike and kill Bettie Jones, a neighbor. The City of Chicago apologized for the incident, but cleared Rialmo of wrongdoing.
A white police officer plans to sue the estate of a black teenager he shot dead because he was traumatized by the fact that he accidentally killed the teen‘s neighbor in the incident, his lawyer said.
"The damage is my client feels horrible that Bettie Jones is dead because of the actions he was forced to take," attorney Joe Brodsky told AFP.
"It‘s affected him greatly. It‘s a burden he‘s going to have to carry for the rest of his life."
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
No. I don't.
Am I the only one thinking, “Uhhhhhhhhh, the black teenager has an estate?”
No doubt he was traumatized. But get over it and get on with your life. Money will not reduce the trauma. It will feed it.
Through and through? Can’t afford HST’s?
If it works for them it works for the police. Lawyers need to get rich.
I think it’s fine for LEOs and anyone else forced to use a weapon to turn the tables on these scumbags.
immadashell is right in post #5...sue Rahm sue Loretta Lynch sue homobama and sue Revenant Al all for their part in he war on civilized peoples.
Let them hire DEFENSE attorneys instead of the usual scumbag ambulance chasers they turn to.
I am not sure of the details of this case, but in most recent publicized police shootings, the shooting victim's family is paid off sometimes in large amounts. It is possible in this case, those funds are what is being sought after.
The article makes sure we know who’s black and who’s white so we put the blame in the right place.
Me too. Where’s the money? It’s somewhere!
No, the dead girls family will be suing the cop, therefor it is imperative that the cop gets a judgement against the guy he killed showing that it is he, the dead guys fault for the young girl being killed. It is called covering your ass.
Cops start using bullets that are INTENDED to kill will get a certain party's panties in a twist. This is a no-win situation. Except maybe for people standing behind the people or things the cops are shooting at.
OS
He’s the kid who the 911 dispatcher hung up on three times when he called for help because of a mental issue. The cops finally showed up when his dad called. When they got there, they managed to shoot and kill him as well as the lady next door.
“He’s the kid who the 911 dispatcher hung up on three times when he called for help because of a mental issue. The cops finally showed up when his dad called. When they got there, they managed to shoot and kill him as well as the lady next door.”
Just another “killer cop” trying to find a way to offload his guilt for the two murders he committed. The idea that a not dropping a baseball bat is grounds to be killed makes me sick. Cops have such a low value on human life today, one would think that they are all Muslims!
I think it’s fine for LEOs and anyone else forced to use a weapon to turn the tables on these scumbags.
...
Especially if the family of the teenager gets a big “riot insurance” settlement from the city.
the officer could be suing because the city decided to pay off the persons family who the shot went through rather then litigating it in the court. if that is the case I hope the officer turns around and gives it to the innocent bystanders family who died.
“They are unlawful for use in warfare because they are so ‘terrible.’”
The “1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets” addressed hollow-points and prohibition thereof. No mention of them being “terrible.” Besides, we never signed onto that declaration.
They were initially considered prohibited because hollow-points were “calculated to cause superfluous injury.”
The interpretation of the LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) has evolved and a re-interpretation now allows, or will allow, use of hollow-points.
https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-manual-returns-hollow-point-bullets-armed-conflict/
Maybe not in the declaration, but certainly in the discussions for much of the decade leading up to it. I've been a gun nut and history buff nearly all my life, and I last taught LOAC in 1997, shortly before I retired from the USAF. We may not have signed the declaration, but we did in fact follow it for quite some time. Mostly, at least. The 5.56mm round used in the M-16 was used as a way to get around the prohibition on expanding bullets. They don't expand, just tumble and bounce. Seems to me that the newer versions of the round are not so likely to do that, as the older design was unreliable. I learned to use the M-16 while the war was still going on, but missed out on taking part in it. Never did like the M-16 as a weapon of war, but they were fun to shoot. Would have preferred something like an M1 or Garand for distance work, and a Tommy gun for jungle or close-up work. Fortunately for me I never had to do that sort of thing, just dodge a few Scud-B’s during the 1st Persian Gulf War.
OS
WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)
1973-1997
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.