• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen sues officer who held him at gunpoint near bus stop

ttwtt78640 said:
The biggest problem that I see is in convincing a judge or jury that a significant monetary value is justified as compensation for the alleged damages.
Click to expand...

When the courts award damages in the $3,000,000,000 range, "significant monetary value" gets pretty tough to reduce to $1.25.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
When the courts award damages in the $3,000,000,000 range, "significant monetary value" gets pretty tough to reduce to $1.25.
Click to expand...

Yep, but there were no injuries reported - it remains unclear to me what "trauma" was claimed to have been suffered.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but there were no injuries reported - it remains unclear to me what "trauma" was claimed to have been suffered.
Click to expand...

There are several accepted terms for it and one of them is "infliction of mental distress".

There is always an element of "intentional" associated with that head of damage, but the "thin skull" argument applies and, as long as the defendant intended their action to cause the plaintiff to become fearful (regardless of WHY the defendant wanted the plaintiff to become fearful) then the element of "intentional" can be established.

Not only that, but the pleadings would be professionally incompetent if they didn't include "knew, or ought reasonably to have known, would cause". (I rather suspect that no court would have much difficulty in accepting the proposition that someone who pointed a gun at another person and yelled at that other person would be killed if they didn't do what they were told "ought reasonably to have known" that such an action just might cause some "mental distress". I also rather suspect that no court would have much difficulty in accepting the proposition that someone who was innocently running to catch a bus just might be slightly more susceptible to that "mental distress" than someone who had just committed a felony.)
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
There are several accepted terms for it and one of them is "infliction of mental distress".

There is always an element of "intentional" associated with that head of damage, but the "thin skull" argument applies and, as long as the defendant intended their action to cause the plaintiff to become fearful (regardless of WHY the defendant wanted the plaintiff to become fearful) then the element of "intentional" can be established.

Not only that, but the pleadings would be professionally incompetent if they didn't include "knew, or ought reasonably to have known, would cause". (I rather suspect that no court would have much difficulty in accepting the proposition that someone who pointed a gun at another person and yelled at that other person would be killed if they didn't do what they were told "ought reasonably to have known" that such an action just might cause some "mental distress". I also rather suspect that no court would have much difficulty in accepting the proposition that someone who was innocently running to catch a bus just might be slightly more susceptible to that "mental distress" than someone who had just committed a felony.)
Click to expand...

Fine, but what would you consider that "mental distress" to be worth? $1M/per second of "mental distress" inflicted or what?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Fine, but what would you consider that "mental distress" to be worth? $1M/per second of "mental distress" inflicted or what?
Click to expand...

According to the article, they were also seeking punitive damages, and that in order to be filed in federal court, the damages (although not specified) have to exceed $50,000.

The specific portion attiributed to mental distress really doesn't matter... IF this really went to trial, it would be about optics, and the jury will make an award based on how egregious they feel the officer's actions were. There's no question she's in the wrong. It's also likely to go to settlement LONG before that.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If one of the basis for the lawsuit is "failure to train properly" then the municipality could well be found "jointly and severally liable" (upon that basis being accepted by the courts).

IF the municipality is found "jointly and severally liable" (without any apportionment of liability) then the judgment creditor is at liberty to enforce 100% of the judgment against the municipality (or any of the other tortfeasors) - whereupon the municipality (or the other tortfeasor) could seek "an apportionment of liability and contribution" from the other tortfeasors.

Since the municipality is the most likely to have "deep pockets", the municipality would be the primary target for the enforcement of any judgment.
Click to expand...

That's my thought. Given that it's probably a small department, they probably don't do much training, and shouldn't have a problem proving a defficiency there. The officer will also be highly motivated to show that the issue was a lack of training/resources as well.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Fine, but what would you consider that "mental distress" to be worth? $1M/per second of "mental distress" inflicted or what?
Click to expand...

Well, if I were to agree to quantify it at a minimal $1/second then I would have to then set it at $60 per minute [or $360 per hour {or $8,640 per day}] times the total number of days from the time of the incident until the "mental distress" had been completely remediated (which could be as much as 10 years [but which also might never happen {ref. cases involving PTSD and the recovery time until all flashbacks and relapses have ceased}]) so that would mean that the "reasonable" quantum of damages would be $31,556,736 (or let's just call it $30,000,000 for the sake of convenience).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Fine, but what would you consider that "mental distress" to be worth? $1M/per second of "mental distress" inflicted or what?
Click to expand...
Not even close but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in the low tens of thousands. That's a pretty big nut to pay off on a cop's salary that she might not be getting anymore
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Well, if I were to agree to quantify it at a minimal $1/second then I would have to then set it at $60 per minute [or $360 per hour {or $8,640 per day}] times the total number of days from the time of the incident until the "mental distress" had been completely remediated (which could be as much as 10 years [but which also might never happen {ref. cases involving PTSD and the recovery time until all flashbacks and relapses have ceased}]) so that would mean that the "reasonable" quantum of damages would be $31,556,736 (or let's just call it $30,000,000 for the sake of convenience).
Click to expand...

WOW! He's gonna own that cop!
 
dcsports said:
That's my thought. Given that it's probably a small department, they probably don't do much training, and shouldn't have a problem proving a defficiency there. The officer will also be highly motivated to show that the issue was a lack of training/resources as well.
Click to expand...

The young woman is also going to have a real incentive to attempt to establish that her employer


"committed a fundamental breach of fiduciary duty"
​

by


"making representations that it knew, or ought reasonably to have known, were false with respect to the adequacy of the training provided"
​

and that by so doing

"deliberately, or through culpable negligence, caused the defendant police officer to undertaken actions which the defendant police officer would not have undertaken had the defendant municipality acted in a competent, professional, and ethical manner towards the defendant police officer"
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What "premise". The statistical data is drawn from the US national data banks maintained by the FBI.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I am sure that BLM didn't spin the numbers at all right? :roll:

So would any rational person.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that I am a rational opponent in your eyes...

Where did you ever see me saying that it was?
Click to expand...

With every America bashing, snide, snarky, stupid post you type.

Are you trying to tell me that the FBI is an arm of "Black/Blue Lives Matter"?
Click to expand...

No, I am telling you that BLM takes data, and twists their meaning to their narrative...Much like your dishonest attempt at twisting my words here.

If the "activist group on the right" DID have independently confirmable data upon which to base their conclusions and if their data DID back up their conclusions, then I WOULD "accept" that study.

Wouldn't you?


Oh, wait, of course you wouldn't.

If the group was an activist group on the right and they DID NOT have independently confirmable data upon which to base their conclusions and/or if their data DID NOT back up their conclusions, then I WOULD NOT "accept" that study.

Would you?


Oh wait, of course you would.
Click to expand...

Oh my...TU doesn't like me...Whatever will I do?!!! :shock:
 
ocean515 said:
Because that's what dog whistles are. Think click bait. How could anyone know anything about this story? A loud noise was heard. Ok. What does that mean? A gun shot, a sound of broken glass? An explosion?

Some kid then comes running by. What words were exchanged? What responses were given?

There is nothing to the story other than the articles attempt to paint an off duty cop as an asshole, and some kid as a wronged victim.

That could be the case, but how would anyone know? Of course, this story, being click bait is just confirmation bias for profit, and details aren't required.
Click to expand...

You pull a gun, on someone without provocation, while off duty, you don't deserve benefit of the doubt.
 
joko104 said:
Your message is an outright lie.

Fact is that when approaching an unknown situation with a sense of danger, an officer - particularly alone - should have his/her gun drawn. To avoid anyone hurt, the suspicious person is ordered to get face down on the ground. The result is no one is hurt and when cleared up the person goes on his/her way. Everyone goes home. No one hurt.

You can't stand that outcome. In your view, police have to agree to being murdered. Your messages are a clear history of being a cop hater. That's your right. But no officer should die for your apparent message hatred of them. What the officer did not only was 100% legal, but very smart on her part. The only possible criticism was her lack of apathy being in another city.
Click to expand...

She was off duty and in another state, on vacation, she could have just stayed in her car and minded her own ****ing business.
 
j-mac said:
So, straight to the nearest tree then?
Click to expand...

Yes, because believing she doesn't deserve benefit of the doubt means she should die. She deserves the same level of benefit of doubt she provided to Gerardo Becerra, none.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Yes, because believing she doesn't deserve benefit of the doubt means she should die.
Click to expand...

Wow....Good job at pegging yourself within the opening days of your membership here...What a disgusting view...
 
j-mac said:
Wow....Good job at pegging yourself within the opening days of your membership here...What a disgusting view...
Click to expand...

You really can't be that stupid can you? or can you?
 
j-mac said:
He said that the officer should DIE!!! and I'm arguing in bad faith? smh...:doh
Click to expand...


Please point out where I said an officer should die. You said "straight to a tree then?" and I responded with sarcasm, because your comment was too stupid for words.

ETA: you also cut the last half of my statement, which is telling.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, and I am sure that BLM didn't spin the numbers at all right? :roll:
Click to expand...

Did you know that you cannot "spin the numbers"? You can spin what you say the numbers mean, but you cannot change the data.

The FACT is that, a "Black" has a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a police officer in any given situation than a "non-Black" has in an identical situation. Does that mean that "All police officers are racists."? Nope, it merely means that a "Black" has a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a police officer in any given situation than a "non-Black" has in an identical situation. When "Black Lives Matter" claims that a "Black" has a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a police officer in any given situation than a "non-Black" has in an identical situation they are actually telling the truth and so it has some justification for its claim that a "Black" has a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a police officer in any given situation than a "non-Black" has in an identical situation.

On the other hand, the FACT is that a police officer has a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a "Black" in any given situation than they have of being shot and killed by a "non-Black" has in an identical situation. Does that mean that all "Blacks" are "cop killers"? Nope, all that it means is that a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a "Black" in any given situation than they have of being shot and killed by a "non-Black" has in an identical situation. When "Blue Lives Matter" claims that a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a "Black" in any given situation than they have of being shot and killed by a "non-Black" has in an identical situation it is merely telling the truth and so it has some justification for claiming that a statistically significant greater chance of being shot and killed by a "Black" in any given situation than they have of being shot and killed by a "non-Black" has in an identical situation.

j-mac said:
Thank you for admitting that I am a rational opponent in your eyes...
Click to expand...

Well, most of the time.

j-mac said:
With every America bashing, snide, snarky, stupid post you type.
Click to expand...

Well then, I guess that I'll just have to start making those types of posts so that you will feel justified in ignoring the problems in American society today, won't I?

j-mac said:
No, I am telling you that BLM takes data, and twists their meaning to their narrative...Much like your dishonest attempt at twisting my words here.
Click to expand...

Please see above with respect to BOTH versions of BLM.

j-mac said:
Oh my...TU doesn't like me...Whatever will I do?!!! :shock:
Click to expand...

Never having met you in person, I neither "like" nor "dislike" you.

Of course, when a person is unable to tell the difference between "a statement that is based on facts and logic that doesn't say what I want to hear" and "a statement of hatred", I suppose that such errors of interpretation do occur occasionally.
 
What a hilarious train wreck.

TU, please let us know what the settlement - if any - is when the smoke clears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom