Deputy sues lady that called 911

[Luke E.]

So if you work at a bank and are assaulted during an armed robbery, you have no right to sue the robbers? Getting robbed is part of the job, right?

I actually like this precedent for a number of reasons. I don't see why being a cop opens you up to liability from criminals yet being a criminal doesn't open you up to liability from the cops.

One more thing, we all have that guy in the family who is a scumbag. He may even be a fun guy to hang out with, and you love him as he is your brother/uncle/cousin/in-law, but he is still a scumbag for whatever reason. When my scumbag family member gets lumped up by the cops, my first reaction isn't to think that the cops did something wrong, because I know the scumbag's MO. Now, this woman who is being sued KNOWS this guy had been taking hallucinogenic drugs for DAYS. How dare she call the police to get this guy when she was in fear, then accuse them of using too much force and murdering him? It's possible to still love your dead family member, yet accept they were responsible for their own demise.

 

 Talk about inbred!

[JAB]

I have a problem with this because it sets a precedent of cops suing citizens - citizens who were not breaking the law or abetting criminal activity - for the cop having to do his damn job.  Maybe some people can find a way to 'justify' his actions in this case but it still sets a bad precedent for the future.  It might be different if the dispatcher asked the 911 caller if the guy had been using drugs and she lied and said, "No," but I didn't see anything in the story to indicate this was the case.  Suing her for not mentioning it during a 911 call when she was probably scared and not thinking straight definitely sets a bad precedent.  The average person also does not have the same training to assess a scene and the inherent dangers that I would think a cop has.  The LEO should have assessed things for himself instead of just blithely strolling in, assuming the dispatcher had all the facts.  Further, this guy chose to be a cop.  Cops deal with dangerous people, sometimes.  It is just goes with the territory.  There is a simple way to lessen those risks - find another job.

 

See, I don't want to go into situations where I may have to deal with violent criminals as part of my job so, therefore, I am not a cop.  If I were a cop, I would have to accept that certain risks go with the job, just like being a fireman, a soldier, etc.  If a person doesn't want to risk injury, maybe they should consider being a CPA or a mattress salesman instead of a cop.  To sue someone because he came up against the risks inherent in being a LEO is ridiculous.

Edited August 17, 2013 by JAB

[Randall53]

I was jokingly referring to the original poster who happens to be a lawyer, deflecting attention from his profession (who actually filed the lawsuit) and making sure to redirect animosity to the deputy sheriff.

I don't have a problem with calling a jackhole a jackhole. I do have a problem with the usual suspects who pass absolute judgment without knowing all the facts. That's my description of "LEO bashing."

redirection of attention. in my house we call that an "OBAMA"...... "DAMN woman you sure did OBAMA me with that line 'O CRAP!!!!!" Edited August 17, 2013 by Randall53

[TMF]

See, I don't want to go into situations where I may have to deal with violent criminals as part of my job so, therefore, I am not a cop. If I were a cop, I would have to accept that certain risks go with the job, just like being a fireman, a soldier, etc. If a person doesn't want to risk injury, maybe they should consider being a CPA or a mattress salesman instead of a cop. To sue someone because he came up against the risks inherent in being a LEO is ridiculous.

We could extend that to just about any profession, but that does not absolve a criminal of civil liability. What you're describing makes sense if the officer was trying to sue his department for putting him in harms way, but not for the criminal. Essentially what you're saying is that a person can do anything to a cop without fear of civil liability. That means that police officers are the only people that applies to; how does that make sense?

So, for example, we all know that working in a convenience store puts you at an extremely high risk of be robbed. If, while on the clock, you're shot by a robber and he is later caught, why can't you sue him civilly? He sure as hell can sue you if you shoot him is self defense. Your choice of profession does not absolve a criminal of their civil liability.

I wish cops would sue people more; they deserve to be compensated by the people who injure them. For example, my dad came home more than once with black eyes and skinned elbows from suspects who attacked him. He had a severe back injury requiring surgery halfway through his career, which had him benched for months, all because some big drunk decided to fight him. Unfortunately they didnt have pepper spray and tasers back then. So who do you think picked up that bill? Hmmmm? Was it the drunk who attacked him? Oh no, it was the tax payer, and that was only in the form of medical bills and paid leave to recover. It probably cost the state in the tens of thousands of dollars. Of course, there was no compensation for pain and suffering. Why should there not be? Why couldn't a cop in that situation sue the person who attacked him? Because he was on the clock??? That does not pass the sniff test.

[npgunner]

We could extend that to just about any profession, but that does not absolve a criminal of civil liability. What you're describing makes sense if the officer was trying to sue his department for putting him in harms way, but not for the criminal. Essentially what you're saying is that a person can do anything to a cop without fear of civil liability. That means that police officers are the only people that applies to; how does that make sense?

So if you're my patient, and you come to see me because you're sick, and I catch what you have and miss work because I'm sick; can I sue you because you exposed me? After all, you gave me your disease, and you likely didn't tell me exactly what disease you had before you came to see me.

Or is that only an occupational hazard just as much as dealing with a druggie is an occupational hazard for a cop?

[TMF]

So if you're my patient, and you come to see me because you're sick, and I catch what you have and miss work because I'm sick; can I sue you because you exposed me? After all, you gave me your disease, and you likely didn't tell me exactly what disease you had before you came to see me.



Or is that only an occupational hazard just as much as dealing with a druggie is an occupational hazard for a cop?

That is not remotely close. Please try another analogy, unless it is common for regular people to sue over getting a cold.

It is, however, normal to sue people who shoot you. So, someone explain to me why I can shoot a cop and only be held criminally liable but not civilly, but if I shoot you I'm held accountable in both courts. The only difference is that the cop is on the clock. If you can't produce a law which states that cops can be shot with civil impunity then don't bother responding, I won't read it.

[DaveTN]

I have a problem with this because it sets a precedent of cops suing citizens

I doubt this will be a precedent setting case (although in this day and age you never know).

I just thought when I read that the cop had killed their family member there may be more to the story than the press is reporting.(Sounds impossible huh?) It could be that the cop and his attorney were reacting to information they had, or it could be that two dumbazzes met up and came up with this plan.

[Luke E.]

We could extend that to just about any profession, but that does not absolve a criminal of civil liability. What you're describing makes sense if the officer was trying to sue his department for putting him in harms way, but not for the criminal. Essentially what you're saying is that a person can do anything to a cop without fear of civil liability. That means that police officers are the only people that applies to; how does that make sense?

So, for example, we all know that working in a convenience store puts you at an extremely high risk of be robbed. If, while on the clock, you're shot by a robber and he is later caught, why can't you sue him civilly? He sure as hell can sue you if you shoot him is self defense. Your choice of profession does not absolve a criminal of their civil liability.

Your examples keep talking about the cops (or whatever profession you chose) should be able to sue the bad guy that injures them. If you will overlay your examples over the actual story you will see that they are not the same at all.
Your saying if I get the cops called on me and break their nose and bite them that they should be able to sue me.. Only problem there is your argument is flawed, see "I" the criminal that harmed you am DEAD, remember, you shot me after I attacked. Now, all of your examples talk about sueing the bad guy and the bad guy in this story payed for his stupidity with his life so sueing him won't work.
See this story isn't about a LEO sueing a criminal for harming him, but rather him sueing the person that called 911.
Hey maybe next he'll take a shot at sueing the dispatcher for not asking the right questions.
Now if they decided to file this as a preemptive strike to head off something coming from the criminals family then more power to him I guess.

[TMF]

Your examples keep talking about the cops (or whatever profession you chose) should be able to sue the bad guy that injures them. If you will overlay your examples over the actual story you will see that they are not the same at all.

Your saying if I get the cops called on me and break their nose and bite them that they should be able to sue me.. Only problem there is your argument is flawed, see "I" the criminal that harmed you am DEAD, remember, you shot me after I attacked. Now, all of your examples talk about sueing the bad guy and the bad guy in this story payed for his stupidity with his life so sueing him won't work.

See this story isn't about a LEO sueing a criminal for harming him, but rather him sueing the person that called 911.

Hey maybe next he'll take a shot at sueing the dispatcher for not asking the right questions.

Now if they decided to file this as a preemptive strike to head off something coming from the criminals family then more power to him I guess.

In the post you're referencing I'm not talking about this specific case, I'm answering the issue brought up about cops being able to sue at all. That seems to be the problem with many. I don't see why.

As for this specific case, I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to its frivolity. They may have a case or they may not. However, folks saying cops should NEVER be able to sue someone who is criminally liable for causing them injury is suggesting a double standard on zero grounds.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

I don't have a problem with a LEO being able to Sue someone that directly injures him, but sueing the caller for incomplete information is a little far fetched. I know I personally assume dispatch information to be incomplete and fill in the blanks based on experience. For example, if I get dispatched to superior creek lodge in east ridge for a relatively young individual complaining of chest pain, (at least a couple times per week) I'm going to assume based on experience that there's probably some drug activity involved and my situational awareness for myself and my 120lb female partner will be EXTREMELY HIGH. I'm not going to get butt-hurt that the Dispatcher didn't specifically tell me "the patient is on crack and so is his common law wife who called us".

[Smith]

I'd there is a case here from the LEO, shouldn't he go after dispatch for not mediating the info better? Just saying, bigger pockets there. Makes as much sense as any thing else said here. ;)

[TMF]

I'd there is a case here from the LEO, shouldn't he go after dispatch for not mediating the info better? Just saying, bigger pockets there. Makes as much sense as any thing else said here. ;)

I don't think this is about deep pockets. If I'd have to sue someone it would have nothing to do with money.

[tnguy]

I'm sure this case will be thrown out. And with any luck, every time this cop comes up for promotion, they'll shake their heads, say "Not this dumbass again" and he'll be stuck writing speeding tickets until he gives up and gets a job poking pigs with sticks or something.

 

No one should be having to second guess themselves when calling 911 when there's a threat to their life.

Edited August 17, 2013 by tnguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think this is about deep pockets. If I'd have to sue someone it would have nothing to do with money.

But the vast majority of the time, it is about the money. I have had many times I felt I should have sued for damages,

the way some entities sometimes treat people, but I have always bit my lip and let it go. Usually things reported in the

media leave out too much of the story, and this one is another example of that. I didn't catch the time line, at all, until

I read one of the posts here.

 

I do understand where you're coming from, but if a cop can sue for whatever reason without first suing his department,

who was first in the chain of liabilities, especially when it comes to what his job is, it would be one more reason to not

have cops, in the first place. Got nothing to do with bashing cops, either. He should know his job is wrought with

danger before he makes any move, shouldn't he? And I am not saying the victim, whoever it is, in this case, should

be able to sue, either.

 

I'd say there is plenty of frivolity to go around. They have their policies and procedures, just like you and I. That comes

first.

[JAB]

We could extend that to just about any profession, but that does not absolve a criminal of civil liability. What you're describing makes sense if the officer was trying to sue his department for putting him in harms way, but not for the criminal. Essentially what you're saying is that a person can do anything to a cop without fear of civil liability. That means that police officers are the only people that applies to; how does that make sense?

 

Please find in my posts, above, where I said the criminal should be absolved of civil liability.  I saw nothing in the story to indicate that the 911 caller had committed ANY criminal offense - meaning the 911 caller is not, as far as we know, a criminal.  Further, I didn't even see any proof that the lady had provided false information to the dispatcher.  So, therefore, this cop isn't looking at suing the criminal but, instead, is looking at suing an innocent citizen who had the audacity to call 911 and expect this cop to be able to handle his job.  Stupid her - what does she think the cops are there for, anyway?  Protecting and serving or some such nonsense as that?

 

See, I am talking about this, particular case - not some hypothetical and totally unrelated case where a cop sues the person who injured him (which, as far as I can see, is not what is being discussed by the majority of participants in this thread.)  That is why I say that calling this jackhole a jackhole because he is suing an innocent 911 caller is not 'cop bashing'.  It isn't.  Now, if jackhole bashing is offensive then I guess I am guilty because I refuse to give a jackhole a 'pass' just because he is wearing a uniform and a badge.

Edited August 20, 2013 by JAB

[JAB]

However, folks saying cops should NEVER be able to sue someone who is criminally liable for causing them injury...

 

I guess I must have overlooked the post(s) where people were saying that.  The only post(s) I have seen pretty much say that the cop shouldn't be able to sue the person who called 911 when that person committed no crime.  Maybe we are reading a different thread or maybe I'm just not reading closely enough.

Edited August 20, 2013 by JAB

[TMF]

I guess I must have overlooked the post(s) where people were saying that. The only post(s) I have seen pretty much say that the cop shouldn't be able to sue the person who called 911 when that person committed no crime. Maybe we are reading a different thread or maybe I'm just not reading closely enough.

There were comments specifically stating that cops being able to sue is wrong because dealing with dangerous criminals is in the job description.

As for this cop suing the woman, like I said, I'm not a lawyer. No, folks should not be made to feel scared to call 911, but I don't think that's what this is about.

[TMF]

Please find in my posts, above, where I said the criminal should be absolved of civil liability.  I saw nothing in the story to indicate that the 911 caller had committed ANY criminal offense - meaning the 911 caller is not, as far as we know, a criminal.  Further, I didn't even see any proof that the lady had provided false information to the dispatcher.  So, therefore, this cop isn't looking at suing the criminal but, instead, is looking at suing an innocent citizen who had the audacity to call 911 and expect this cop to be able to handle his job.  Stupid her - what does she think the cops are there for, anyway?  Protecting and serving or some such nonsense as that?

 

See, I am talking about this, particular case - not some hypothetical and totally unrelated case where a cop sues the person who injured him (which, as far as I can see, is not what is being discussed by the majority of participants in this thread.)  That is why I say that calling this jackhole a jackhole because he is suing an innocent 911 caller is not 'cop bashing'.  It isn't.  Now, if jackhole bashing is offensive then I guess I am guilty because I refuse to give a jackhole a 'pass' just because he is wearing a uniform and a badge.

 

This is your post below.

 

JAB, on 17 Aug 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

See, I don't want to go into situations where I may have to deal with violent criminals as part of my job so, therefore, I am not a cop. If I were a cop, I would have to accept that certain risks go with the job, just like being a fireman, a soldier, etc. If a person doesn't want to risk injury, maybe they should consider being a CPA or a mattress salesman instead of a cop. To sue someone because he came up against the risks inherent in being a LEO is ridiculous.

 

I interpreted you words to be generalities, as in you are saying here that due to the inherent risks, a cop should never be able to sue anyone for any reason when they are injured on the job.  That is bull.  If a criminal injures a cop, a cop has the RIGHT to sue them for damages.  Just as if the criminal was to injure you. 

 

If you are saying that I incorrectly interpreted that comment above, then so be it.  It just seems what you described applies to any situation where a cop is injured, not just a case like this where the cop is suing someone other than the individual who injured him.

 

In a big coincidence, a LEO family member of mine was injured just two days ago after catching someone in the act of dumping the body of an individual they murdered.  A vehicle chase ensued followed by a foot pursuit.  This family member of mine had his hand broken during the subsequent struggle with the suspect.  The injuries to his hand are so severe he will be undergoing surgery tomorrow and will require plates.  He will likely have a permanent disability due to this injury.  At a minimum he will be on paid leave until he is healed enough to ride a desk.  This will, of course, come at a great expense to the tax payer.  The personal expense to my family member will be the permanent damage to his hand, which will undoubtedly affect his career, quality of life and cause extreme pain and stress.  He absolutely has the right to sue this drug dealing murderer.  He may not get anything out of it, but that isn't the point.  He still has the right.  Anyone that says otherwise can shove it up their ass.

[JAB]

This is your post below.

 

JAB, on 17 Aug 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

 

I interpreted you words to be generalities, as in you are saying here that due to the inherent risks, a cop should never be able to sue anyone for any reason when they are injured on the job.  That is bull.  If a criminal injures a cop, a cop has the RIGHT to sue them for damages.  Just as if the criminal was to injure you. 

 

If you are saying that I incorrectly interpreted that comment above, then so be it.  It just seems what you described applies to any situation where a cop is injured, not just a case like this where the cop is suing someone other than the individual who injured him.

 

I can see how you would misinterpret that post.  What I was getting at is that risks are inherent in a LEO's job and that the LEO should always assume - when called to a scene where a person is acting out - that there will be possible risk and should not be surprised if a threat presents itself regardless of whether or not the person who called 911 gave a full assessment of the situation.  Further, the best way to make sure one does not come up against dangers/risks as part of one's job is to not do a job where such dangers and risks come with the territory - not suing someone else for not telling them that their dangerous job might be dangerous.  Suing because, "she didn't warn me of the potential danger in her 911 call," is bull.  That is what I meant when I said that dealing with potentially dangerous people is part of his job and that he shouldn't be suing [a third party] because he came up against such a person.  For clarity, I probably should have said that he shouldn't be suing someone who committed no crime and who only made the 911 call.

 

Just one of those cases where I knew what I meant so didn't see that someone else might interpret it differently.  I have no problem with a cop suing the criminal who actually injured him (which in this case is impossible because his attacker is dead.)  Hell, just for a hypothetical, if a cop were injured in an accident while chasing a fleeing criminal I'd have no problem with the cop suing the criminal even though said criminal did not directly injure the cop.

 

All that being said, I still maintain that in a case where a cop is suing a 911 caller who did not break the law and did not attack him simply because she didn't tell him that doing his dangerous job could be dangerous is BS and the individual cop who is doing so is a jackhole.

Edited August 21, 2013 by JAB

[TMF]

Suing because, "she didn't warn me of the potential danger in her 911 call," is bull. That is what I meant when I said that dealing with potentially dangerous people is part of his job and that he shouldn't be suing [a third party] because he came up against such a person.

You have a better chance of being right on those points than I do. I just am having a hard time believing that this was an "out of the blue" type thing. I don't have any evidence to that effect, I just feel as if there is more to the story in regard to what the MIL did following the shooting.