Thug cop sues victim. The

[Soho gator]

You could not make this **** up.


Police officer to sue family of teenager he shot « Hot Air

 

[mike2810]

Welcome to the United States of Litigation. :mrgreen:

 

[Beaudreaux]

What's the problem?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Just read up on this story again, to refresh my memory.

So, what happened was, the parents of the man that was shot in this story called 911 to request police to come to their house and help them with their son (the black man that was shot [only reason I mention his color is because it seems to matter to the OP of this thread]) that they themselves couldn't control and were in fear of because he had a baseball bat and was attacking his father. So, then the police show up, and the man with a bat threatens the police with the bat and then comes at an officer with the bat in an attempt to attack the officer. The officer shoots the man to protect himself because as the man had done to his father, he was attacking the officer with a deadly weapon. One of the shots goes through the man and strikes a lady that was behind the man, killing her, which so far is the only actual tragedy in this story. The officer and the incident are investigated and the investigation shows that shooting the man was justified, and the woman being shot with a bullet that passed through the man was a tragic accident - no criminal charges due to no criminal act occurring. So... the families of the two that were shot, file lawsuits. The officer in the incident, is sued by the family that called him to the scene to help them with their son who was attacking his father with a deadly weapon because they couldn't control him and they were in fear of their own son, because when the officer arrived, the man attacked the officer and the officer defended himself, killing the attacking man. So, now the officer is counter-suing, which may not have ever happened otherwise, because the officer is being sued for doing his job at the request of the parents of the man that was shot, and the officer is suffering because of the fact his bullet fired at the man in self defense went through the man and killed an innocent woman. So far, all the above is true and accurate based on the OP story and the Chicago Tribune story here.

So again, what's the problem? Also, why would you call the officer a "thug cop?" As the stories both show, he was just doing his job. Read my sig below for an explanation of what happened here.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

So basically, the dead guy's parents called the police for help because they couldn't handle their mentally disturbed son. The cop who responded to the call is suing those parents because he did his job poorly.

Moral of story: Think twice before calling 911 because it may blow up in your face.

 

[Bodi]

Just read up on this story again, to refresh my memory.

So, what happened was, the parents of the man that was shot in this story called 911 to request police to come to their house and help them with their son (the black man that was shot [only reason I mention his color is because it seems to matter to the OP of this thread]) that they themselves couldn't control and were in fear of because he had a baseball bat and was attacking his father. So, then the police show up, and the man with a bat threatens the police with the bat and then comes at an officer with the bat in an attempt to attack the officer. The officer shoots the man to protect himself because as the man had done to his father, he was attacking the officer with a deadly weapon. One of the shots goes through the man and strikes a lady that was behind the man, killing her, which so far is the only actual tragedy in this story. The officer and the incident are investigated and the investigation shows that shooting the man was justified, and the woman being shot with a bullet that passed through the man was a tragic accident - no criminal charges due to no criminal act occurring. So... the families of the two that were shot, file lawsuits. The officer in the incident, is sued by the family that called him to the scene to help them with their son who was attacking his father with a deadly weapon because they couldn't control him and they were in fear of their own son, because when the officer arrived, the man attacked the officer and the officer defended himself, killing the attacking man. So, now the officer is counter-suing, which may not have ever happened otherwise, because the officer is being sued for doing his job at the request of the parents of the man that was shot, and the officer is suffering because of the fact his bullet fired at the man in self defense went through the man and killed an innocent woman. So far, all the above is true and accurate based on the OP story and the Chicago Tribune story here.

So again, what's the problem? Also, why would you call the officer a "thug cop?" As the stories both show, he was just doing his job. Read my sig below for an explanation of what happened here.

The ****ing problem is that the cop should not be shooting with innocent people clearly in the close background...

 

[Bodi]

So basically, the dead guy's parents called the police for help because they couldn't handle their mentally disturbed son. The cop who responded to the call is suing those parents because he did his job poorly.

Moral of story: Think twice before calling 911 because it may blow up in your face.

There was a story a couple years ago about a dad that called the cops on his son for taking his car without permission. The dad just wanted to teach the son a lesson. The cops shot and killed the kid.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

This all would be a non issue had the cop used some good ole Hornady TAP Urban ammunition that does not over penetrate, but blows a big hole in the perp.

I will bet anyone a dozen doughnuts he was using cheaper 9mm ball ammo. That stuff over penetrates some rifle ammunition.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The ****ing problem is that the cop should not be shooting with innocent people clearly in the close background...

Being that the cop didn't know she was standing behind the man, there's nothing "clearly" about it. Also, if the man wasn't threatening his family requiring the police to be called to the scene, and then threatened and attacked the officer, no one would have been shot. The police officer was doing his job. The guy that caused all this was the guy with the ball bat, not the cop.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This all would be a non issue had the cop used some good ole Hornady TAP Urban ammunition that does not over penetrate, but blows a big hole in the perp.

I will bet anyone a dozen doughnuts he was using cheaper 9mm ball ammo. That stuff over penetrates some rifle ammunition.

I'll bet you a dozen more doughnuts that he was using ammunition issued to him by the city or the union.

 

[Soho gator]

I'll bet you a dozen more doughnuts that he was using ammunition issued to him by the city or the union.

Under my reasonable proposal he would have been limited to at most rubber bullets but preferably a Tazar.

 

[Bodi]

Being that the cop didn't know she was standing behind the man, there's nothing "clearly" about it. Also, if the man wasn't threatening his family requiring the police to be called to the scene, and then threatened and attacked the officer, no one would have been shot. The police officer was doing his job. The guy that caused all this was the guy with the ball bat, not the cop.

Wrong. What caused the cop to be there was the bat guy... once there the decision to fire a gun or not is 100% the cops choice and 100% their responsibility.

The cop chose to fire and killed an innocent person. I never said that the cop should be tried for murder or manslaughter but he should not be suing anybody....

That is disgusting behaviour and kinda goes to show what type of character this cop has in the first place.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

I'll bet you a dozen more doughnuts that he was using ammunition issued to him by the city or the union.

You are probably right.

Maybe this little incident might have them rethink their choices.

but wait, this is Chicago.........nevermind.........logic left the building a very long time ago.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

There was a story a couple years ago about a dad that called the cops on his son for taking his car without permission. The dad just wanted to teach the son a lesson. The cops shot and killed the kid.

I have a 19 year old cousin with Down Syndrome. He participates in Special Olympics sports and at a practice one day he lost his temper and threw a chair and started throwing a tantrum. These things happen sometimes when you have the emotional maturity of a 9 year-old. But he is a big guy so it was scary to some of the parents watching in the stands. One of them called 911. In the meantime the coach, who is trained in dealing with people with mental disabilities de-escalated the situation and got him calm again. The coach didn't know someone called 911.

By the time the cops showed up my cousin was back to his usual self and was practicing again. The coach saw the four police coming in and intercepted them. The coach explained nobody was hurt and the situation was under control. The cops said their report stated my cousin threw a chair at someone. That was possible assault and they had to investigate. The coach pleaded that only one cop doing the questioning and to stay friendly. The coach said if they make it confrontational it could stress him out and he could act out.

The cops ignored the coach completely. They surrounded my cousin and began questioning him in a hostile manner. My cousin started to tense up so the cops grabbed him to cuff him, which sent my cousin into a fight or flight mode. He was screaming "leave me alone! I want my mommy!" as they tackled him to the ground. As he continued to struggle they kicked the **** out of him. He had to go to the hospital due to a broken rib and a fractured eye socket.

He used to wave hello whenever he saw a cop. Now he goes into a panic attack.

All the cops had to do was listen to the expert on the ground. But no, they had to get their power trip in.

I remember once when I was 17 we had a situation with my younger brother who was 15 at the time. He has cerebral palsy and on that day he had what can best be desribed as a mental break down. He got into a huge fight with my mom and then kept trying to hang himself with a belt. My step-dad and I were having to use all of our might to get the belts away from him and to prevent him from running off into a room alone. He was stronger than I had ever seen him. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing. My mom was freaking out. My grandfather, who was a physician, arrived at our house right in the middle of this chaos to pick up a blender.

My grandpap started instructing us how to use the belts to restrain him. But it was next to impossible due to his struggling. My mom, in tears, then said, "I'm calling 911."

My grandpap yelled, "NO YOU DON'T!!! They'll send police and things will just get worse. Give me the phone. I know who to call."

I don't know exactly who he called but an ambulance showed up. The paramedics followed my grandfather's instruction, my brother was sedated, and they took him to the hospital. He was there for a week. He got treatment and my brother hasn't had another episode in the decades since.

My grandfather had seen what the police do to the mentally disabled when they are called to help. My grandfather had mended the broken bones and stitched the lacerations.

It is a sad state of affairs but you absolutely cannot trust the police to help in situations like that. They will almost always make things worse.

Now, there are some exceptions. The San Antonio Police Department created specially trained squads dedicated to handling situation involving the mentally ill and disabled. And ALL their police were required to receive 40 hrs of training on how to deal with such people. The results have been very well received by the community. But unless your city has taken that kind of proactive measure, do NOT call them in such an emergency.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Under my reasonable proposal he would have been limited to at most rubber bullets but preferably a Tazar.

Who? The cop? The cop that patrols and is regularly dispatched to some of the most violent neighborhoods in CHICAGO where they had 2,968 shootings in 2015 (not rubber bullets mind you) and so far this year, January 1 through February 1, 2016 has already had 270 shootings with real guns with real bullets? Seriously? Rubber bullets?

As for the Taser, that may have been possible. However, to use a Taser you have to have some distance between you and the person to be subdued. It appears from all reports I've read, that two problems occurred regarding being able to use a Taser (I'm not eve sure he had a Taser) is that the man charged the officer almost immediately upon arrival and there appeared to not be enough distance between the man and the officer at time of the shooting to deploy anything other than the firearm as the man continued to close the distance as he charged the officer.

Here's what should have happened - the man should not have threatened and attacked his father with a bat requiring the police to be called, and when the police did arrive he should have put the gun down and followed the lawful orders of the police officer. Again, that's what should have happened. The police have no duty to not shoot you or not to kill you if you are threatening and attacking them with a deadly weapon. Nor do they have a duty to allow you to hurt or kill you versus them killing you in self defense. No duty at all.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Under my reasonable proposal he would have been limited to at most rubber bullets but preferably a Tazar.

rubber bullets in Chicago? Really?

now if we could just get all of the street thugs to use them too.

That would be " reasonable " too?

Not to anyone who has ever been shot at.

Being shot at and missed, gives you a whole new appreciation of your life, and a whole new HATRED to those who tried to take your life.
REASON leaves the equation as soon as the bullets fly.

 

[Bodi]

I have a 19 year old cousin with Down Syndrome. He participates in Special Olympics sports and at a practice one day he lost his temper and threw a chair and started throwing a tantrum. These things happen sometimes when you have the emotional maturity of a 9 year-old. But he is a big guy so it was scary to some of the parents watching in the stands. One of them called 911. In the meantime the coach, who is trained in dealing with people with mental disabilities de-escalated the situation and got him calm again. The coach didn't know someone called 911.

By the time the cops showed up my cousin was back to his usual self and was practicing again. The coach saw the four police coming in and intercepted them. The coach explained nobody was hurt and the situation was under control. The cops said their report stated my cousin threw a chair at someone. That was possible assault and they had to investigate. The coach pleaded that only one cop doing the questioning and to stay friendly. The coach said if they make it confrontational it could stress him out and he could act out.

The cops ignored the coach completely. They surrounded my cousin and began questioning him in a hostile manner. My cousin started to tense up so the cops grabbed him to cuff him, which sent my cousin into a fight or flight mode. He was screaming "leave me alone! I want my mommy!" as they tackled him to the ground. As he continued to struggle they kicked the **** out of him. He had to go to the hospital due to a broken rib and a fractured eye socket.

He used to wave hello whenever he saw a cop. Now he goes into a panic attack.

All the cops had to do was listen to the expert on the ground. But no, they had to get their power trip in.

I remember once when I was 17 we had a situation with my younger brother who was 15 at the time. He has cerebral palsy and on that day he had what can best be desribed as a mental break down. He got into a huge fight with my mom and then kept trying to hang himself with a belt. My step-dad and I were having to use all of our might to get the belts away from him and to prevent him from running off into a room alone. He was stronger than I had ever seen him. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing. My mom was freaking out. My grandfather, who was a physician, arrived at our house right in the middle of this chaos to pick up a blender.

My grandpap started instructing us how to use the belts to restrain him. But it was next to impossible due to his struggling. My mom, in tears, then said, "I'm calling 911."

My grandpap yelled, "NO YOU DON'T!!! They'll send police and things will just get worse. Give me the phone. I know who to call."

I don't know exactly who he called but an ambulance showed up. The paramedics followed my grandfather's instruction, my brother was sedated, and they took him to the hospital. He was there for a week. He got treatment and my brother hasn't had another episode in the decades since.

My grandfather had seen what the police do to the mentally disabled when they are called to help. My grandfather had mended the broken bones and stitched the lacerations.

It is a sad state of affairs but you absolutely cannot trust the police to help in situations like that. They will almost always make things worse.

Now, there are some exceptions. The San Antonio Police Department created specially trained squads dedicated to handling situation involving the mentally ill and disabled. And ALL their police were required to receive 40 hrs of training on how to deal with such people. The results have been very well received by the community. But unless your city has taken that kind of proactive measure, do NOT call them in such an emergency.

I haven't had those situations but have heard similar stories... I have experienced asshole cops on power trips and ones who just make **** up.

At schools I have taught at when the school cop (real cop assigned to the school) gets involved it generally makes matter worse. I never called for police help once I saw a few situations get bad except at one school that was almost 100% gangs near Oakland. We had the SWAT team show up twice there.

 

[Soho gator]

Who? The cop? The cop that patrols and is regularly dispatched to some of the most violent neighborhoods in CHICAGO where they had 2,968 shootings in 2015 (not rubber bullets mind you) and so far this year, January 1 through February 1, 2016 has already had 270 shootings with real guns with real bullets? Seriously? Rubber bullets?

As for the Taser, that may have been possible. However, to use a Taser you have to have some distance between you and the person to be subdued. It appears from all reports I've read, that two problems occurred regarding being able to use a Taser (I'm not eve sure he had a Taser) is that the man charged the officer almost immediately upon arrival and there appeared to not be enough distance between the man and the officer at time of the shooting to deploy anything other than the firearm as the man continued to close the distance as he charged the officer.

Here's what should have happened - the man should not have threatened and attacked his father with a bat requiring the police to be called, and when the police did arrive he should have put the gun down and followed the lawful orders of the police officer. Again, that's what should have happened. The police have no duty to not shoot you or not to kill you if you are threatening and attacking them with a deadly weapon. Nor do they have a duty to allow you to hurt or kill you versus them killing you in self defense. No duty at all.

Upon further reflection a baton might have been too much armament for the thug cop

 

[Beaudreaux]

Wrong. What caused the cop to be there was the bat guy... once there the decision to fire a gun or not is 100% the cops choice and 100% their responsibility.

The police do not have a duty or responsibility to all themselves to be attacked, harmed, or killed. They do have the right to defend themselves with the tools given them by their employers. The decision to fire the gun was the cops - true. What other choice do you think he had? Allow himself to be harmed? To use your choice of wording, wrong.

The cop chose to fire and killed an innocent person.

The officer chose to defend himself with the tool available to him to do so.

I never said that the cop should be tried for murder or manslaughter but he should not be suing anybody....

Why should the officer not be accorded the exact same rights as the other people?

That is disgusting behaviour and kinda goes to show what type of character this cop has in the first place.

Using your logic, the family of the man that was shot, suing the officer for doing his job after being called to the residence by the family because they were in danger from the man that was threatening and attacking his father with a ball bat, is disgusting behavior as well.

It's called the right to sue. Everyone has it. Nothing disgusting about it. Each party in a disagreement has the right to sue for civil damages. And, the 7th Amendment to the Constitution provides the right to a Jury Trial in civil suits.

 

[Bodi]

Who? The cop? The cop that patrols and is regularly dispatched to some of the most violent neighborhoods in CHICAGO where they had 2,968 shootings in 2015 (not rubber bullets mind you) and so far this year, January 1 through February 1, 2016 has already had 270 shootings with real guns with real bullets? Seriously? Rubber bullets?

As for the Taser, that may have been possible. However, to use a Taser you have to have some distance between you and the person to be subdued. It appears from all reports I've read, that two problems occurred regarding being able to use a Taser (I'm not eve sure he had a Taser) is that the man charged the officer almost immediately upon arrival and there appeared to not be enough distance between the man and the officer at time of the shooting to deploy anything other than the firearm as the man continued to close the distance as he charged the officer.

Here's what should have happened - the man should not have threatened and attacked his father with a bat requiring the police to be called, and when the police did arrive he should have put the gun down and followed the lawful orders of the police officer. Again, that's what should have happened. The police have no duty to not shoot you or not to kill you if you are threatening and attacking them with a deadly weapon. Nor do they have a duty to allow you to hurt or kill you versus them killing you in self defense. No duty at all.

The kid may have suffered from a mental illness... they don't respond so logically in stressful situations. Perfect scenario for a cop to go full auto and blast people...

and then BLAME THE VICTIM! :lol:

 

[Soho gator]

The police do not have a duty or responsibility to all themselves to be attacked, harmed, or killed. They do have the right to defend themselves with the tools given them by their employers. The decision to fire the gun was the cops - true. What other choice do you think he had? Allow himself to be harmed? To use your choice of wording, wrong.

The officer chose to defend himself with the tool available to him to do so. Why should the officer not be accorded the exact same rights as the other people?

Using your logic, the family of the man that was shot, suing the officer for doing his job after being called to the residence by the family because they were in danger from the man that was threatening and attacking his father with a ball bat, is disgusting behavior as well.

It's called the right to sue. Everyone has it. Nothing disgusting about it. Each party in a disagreement has the right to sue for civil damages. And, the 7th Amendment to the Constitution provides the right to a Jury Trial in civil suits.

to be fair to the cop it's not his fault he was issued a gun.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Wrong. What caused the cop to be there was the bat guy... once there the decision to fire a gun or not is 100% the cops choice and 100% their responsibility.

The cop chose to fire and killed an innocent person. I never said that the cop should be tried for murder or manslaughter but he should not be suing anybody....

That is disgusting behaviour and kinda goes to show what type of character this cop has in the first place.

I read a little more and it turns out that the family of the dead bat-swinging man filed a suit before their son was even buried. After Chicago settled for 5 mill with a different victim's family -- these suits have been popping up like mad. The cop, while I hate to ruin a good tale, is not suing the family but is filing a counter-suit against the estate of the bat-guy.

The family has no money from the death -- yet -- and, their suit looks frivolous so it's unlikely they'll make bank, as they're hoping. But, if they do, instead of being rewarded for raising a criminal son, they might find that the suits cancel one another out -- and they don't make out like bandits.

 

[Bodi]

I read a little more and it turns out that the family of the dead bat-swinging man filed a suit before their son was even buried. After Chicago settled for 5 mill with a different victim's family -- these suits have been popping up like mad. The cop, while I hate to ruin a good tale, is not suing the family but is filing a counter-suit against the estate of the bat-guy.

The family has no money from the death -- yet -- and, their suit looks frivolous so it's unlikely they'll make bank, as they're hoping. But, if they do, instead of being rewarded for raising a criminal son, they might find that the suits cancel one another out -- and they don't make out like bandits.

To be clear I think all the lawsuits are ridiculous, in this case at least.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You are probably right.

Maybe this little incident might have them rethink their choices.

but wait, this is Chicago.........nevermind.........logic left the building a very long time ago.

Using bullets that are likely to cause through-and-through wounds are deemed "less lethal" by some versus ammunition that expand, and/or tumble, and or dissipate its energy by creating craters in the flesh. The Hague Convention of 1899 banned lawful combatants from using bullets that expand or flatten when hitting human flesh in combat, but in 2010, the US Army gave the green light to use hollow points. In 1998, the City of New York Police Department began issuing hollow points for the very reason that the OP condemns here - that "full metal jacket" rounds can go through the intended target and harm unintended target. However, the NY ACLU still complained: Army OKs Hollow-Point Bullets | Mother Jones. Just read the dichotomy of views in the linked article from Mother Jones.

As you and I have seen in this thread alone, there are people that want "less-than-lethal" ammunition or weapons be deployed first, regardless of the actual situation. That may save some civilian lives, but IMHO those civilian lives saved will be offset by the police officer and additional innocent bystander lives lost.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Upon further reflection a baton might have been too much armament for the thug cop

What?