Suing if shot as a bystander

In some respects, it is a double standard. In and of itself, that's not necessarily a problem.

LEOs have arrest authority.
I do not.
Double standard.

LEO's are expected to intervene in a violent encounter between two other private citizens.
I am not.
Double standard.

Under certain conditions, LEOs are allowed to ignore speed limits.
I am not.
Double standard.

As a policy matter, we as a society must look at what trades we're willing to make. If immunity doctrines have gone too far, you can always call your legislators and ask that statutes be re-written. There's not a thing in the world wrong with that.

aarondhgraham said:
No one wants to be hurt by a cop with an attitude of,,,
I can be as reckless as I care to be because I have immunity from litigation.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but as a general rule, LEO immunity is "qualified," meaning "within certain limits." If the LEO steps beyond those limits, then he can be stripped of immunity and held liable.

qualified immunity : immunity from civil liability that is conditioned or limited (as by a requirement of good faith or due care) ;specif : official immunity from damages for acts that violate another's civil rights that is granted if it can be shown that the acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware see also Civil Rights Act in the Important Laws section - See more at: http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/immunity.html#sthash.AE7CH7JK.dpuf
Click to expand...
Source: http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/immunity.html
 
Salmoneye said:
...The power emanates from the people...

We 'employ' certain people with discretionary powers (be it police, fire, judge, etc.)...

If in the use of these powers these individuals can simply say:

"I was just doing my job, so I do not have to take responsibility for my actions...The 'People' will pay the bill for me if I am negligent";...
Click to expand...
And since we do employ, we are the ones who pay. You might think it would be satisfying to punish the LEO or firefighter or government clerk by making him personally liable; but since he doesn't have much that won't adequately compensate the person harmed.

Salmoneye said:
...Then I see that as a bad message to be sending to the 'employees' we are entrusting......
Click to expand...
And as with any employer - employee arrangement, the employer's remedy for an employee who messes up is an employment action -- right up to firing the employee in some cases.

Salmoneye said:
As a practical matter, police officers are called upon to make split-second life and death decisions that many of us will never have to do in the course of our jobs. I don't think we really want LEOs to second-guess themselves in that split second out of a fear of being sued.
Click to expand...

Yet from every SD class to most forums, we as 'civilians' are bombarded with the notion that we must second guess everything from when we are allowed to discharge our weapons, to not using certain kinds of ammo, or we will indeed be sued...

My only point is that I see this as somewhat of a double standard...
Click to expand...
Certain forms of inequality are just inherent. The LEO has the backing of his department, as long as he stays within policy. The guy who designs the brakes for GM has the backing of GM, even if those brakes wind up defective in use and folks get injured. But the one-man auto repair shop is on his own if he messes up a customer's job.

In fact, the standards applicable are pretty much the same. But the capacity to absorb the adverse consequences of a failure to meet those standards can vary.
 
Just curious as some may know better then I do...I know this case was a hot topic when it happened and we have had a good debate so far on this lawsuit, but has NYC changed something in that they are going to started fighting lawsuits now and in the future? Or is this just an isolated case? I don't follow a huge amount of NY news, so I do apologize.

As a side note on this topic. There has been some push by officers for departments to fight the majority of cases that come up, because even if a LEO acted legally and within policy doing the correct thing(s) the department giving a cash settlement instead of defending the case may show a perception of wrongdoing or guilt to the public.

Skans, I would have no problem supporting legislation to place both criminal and civil liability on a violent criminal for the greater results of his crime. Call it the violent felons' rule; be committing a violent felony and anyone is injured or killed be it intentionally or otherwise as a result of the commission of the crime, or the response or defense to the crime, be it by the victim or public safety personnel, and the charges greatly increase, as well as straight civil liability is placed on the violent felon for the civil cost of deaths, injuries, etc. It would be like putting the felony murder rule/doctrine on massive steroids perhaps! :) I doubt this would pass though, as the majority of the felons have no assets, and the hope for a quick settlement from the public agencies have gone on for too long. Plus it would probably be ruled as too broad since the results were not foreseen or intentional.
 
Last edited:
Some interesting reading on the subject:

First, to support Spat's mention of police shooting Subject S as a Fourth Amendment claim, not a negligence claim: TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
471 U.S. 1

Secondly I found this scholarly article that provided a fairly interesting school of thought, so to speak, on the issue. "Accidental" Shootings as Fourth Amendment
Seizures
Kathryn R. Urbonya
William & Mary Law School

I have to admit this idea intrigues me, and I'm not sure why/if it didn't get traction.

When the police transpose house numbers on a no-knock warrant, they're still liable for damages are they not? Assuming you're not even home, and pull up to the door while they're packing up, so no one gets shot thinking it was a robbery, they frisk you, detain you, etc. Find out they had the wrong house. They've still got to pay for your door, any walls they destroy, smoke damage etc?

How is this any different? They meant to search House A, instead searched House B. They meant to shoot Suspect A, instead shot Bystander B.
 
Salmoneye

I don't understand your hostility towards my profession. I don't know you and life experience but. I risk my life for people like you every day. I go where you did not want to go to do things you do not want to do. If you think that I do that for a paycheck you are wrong I could make more money doing other things. I want to help people and make a difference. Now having said all that if you think that we as law enforcement officers are not held to a higher standard you are very wrong. The Officers of the NYPD are very lucky that they have a very strong union. By comparison if that same thing happened in Florida. I can guarantee you that even though the Officer would be found not guilty of negligence. Most departments down here would fire him or her because of liability. I have seen Deputy's get hurt or fired because they are more afraid of getting fired than doing what is necessary when the time comes. I just want you to know that it is necessary for us to have some peace of mind that if I'm doing my job to the best of my ability that I won't end up broke or in jail because of a decision I made in a split second. As stated by several other posters I have a duty to act if I do not I will be fired and then I am liable for dereliction of duty. I do not want to have any issues with you but just wanted you to understand the other side of this from my point of view.
 
I'm completely confused. I always see things in black and white even when there as complicated as this issue.

I was told in my CCW class (taught by a range officer and now police chief) that Police Officers are held to the same standard that civilians are in a shooting. It should be clear that any reasonable person would believe their life was in danger and was justified in shooting.

If the above condition is clearly met, then the shooting is not negligent and the officers should not be held accountable in any way. Wether or not the innocent bystandards were injured as a result of the shooting are intitled to compensation, seems to be a completely different issue. To me this is an accident not negligence.
 
Hitthespot said:
I'm completely confused. I always see things in black and white even when there as complicated as this issue....
Click to expand...
That's really your difficulty. This is not, and can not be, seen in black and white.

Hitthespot said:
...I was told in my CCW class (taught by a range officer and now police chief) that Police Officers are held to the same standard that civilians are in a shooting. It should be clear that any reasonable person would believe their life was in danger and was justified in shooting.

If the above condition is clearly met, then the shooting is not negligent and the officers should not be held accountable in any way. Wether or not the innocent bystandards were injured as a result of the shooting are intitled to compensation, seems to be a completely different issue. To me this is an accident not negligence....
Click to expand...
Often what we in casual conversation call an "accident" in fact legally involves some form of legal fault (e. g., negligence). So we call a collision between to cars an "accident", but one involved party may be found to be the legal cause and be financially responsible for the damage.

And one might be justified in using lethal force in self defense against a particular person and still have failed to have used reasonable care with regard to uninvolved innocents. And example was discussed on THR recently.

A hypothetical situation was discussed. Someone was violently trying to breakdown the front door of your home. The question was whether one would be justified in shooting through the door without necessarily waiting to be able to see the target.

Under such circumstances, one could be justified using lethal force to defend against the violent, unlawful entry. But shooting without being able to see the target could be found at least negligent, and perhaps reckless, making one liable to any innocent hit by a stray bullet.

But the bottom line is that if you insist on seeing things in black and white you will not be able to understand this subject.
 
Further, the way things officially are, and the way they REALLY are in practice certainly may not be the same.

The legislative notes for one of my State's deadly force laws makes it clear legislators were intent on being MORE restrictive of law enforcement in the state. In practice, and often just because of human nature, this is not the case. We assume police act lawfully, and certainly don't arrest them until an investigation strenuously suggests otherwise. Some states, I think Texas for one, presumes a civilian shooting was unlawful and automatically arrests the shooter. Now I'm mixing States here, but still in my State it would not be entirely presumed a good shoot, and the civilian would have to engage a lawyer with sizable set of fees.
 
Salmoneye

I don't understand your hostility towards my profession. I don't know you and life experience but. I risk my life for people like you every day. I go where you did not want to go to do things you do not want to do. If you think that I do that for a paycheck you are wrong I could make more money doing other things. I want to help people and make a difference. Now having said all that if you think that we as law enforcement officers are not held to a higher standard you are very wrong. The Officers of the NYPD are very lucky that they have a very strong union. By comparison if that same thing happened in Florida. I can guarantee you that even though the Officer would be found not guilty of negligence. Most departments down here would fire him or her because of liability. I have seen Deputy's get hurt or fired because they are more afraid of getting fired than doing what is necessary when the time comes. I just want you to know that it is necessary for us to have some peace of mind that if I'm doing my job to the best of my ability that I won't end up broke or in jail because of a decision I made in a split second. As stated by several other posters I have a duty to act if I do not I will be fired and then I am liable for dereliction of duty. I do not want to have any issues with you but just wanted you to understand the other side of this from my point of view.
Click to expand...

I have no idea where you are getting anything about "hostility"...

I simply have an issue with what I see as an unequal protection under the law...Why my opinion seems to rankle you, I have no idea ...

As to this line:

"I go where you did not want to go to do things you do not want to do."
Click to expand...

It's this "We're better than the civvies" attitude that seems to be fueling the backlash in public sentiment that LEO's everywhere are getting lately...

You know nothing about me, yet you think you have been somewhere I have not...
 
And one might be justified in using lethal force in self defense against a particular person and still have failed to have used reasonable care with regard to uninvolved innocents. And example was discussed on THR recently.
Click to expand...

Mr Ettin,

Of course I understand what your saying. However how someone can be justified in their actions and negligent at the same time somehow doesn't seem right. ( and maybe I should have said it seems a little clearer in my mind instead of black and white.) If you can show that the police officers life were not in danger, or they could have waited before acting, then they were not justifed in shooting when they did and therfor negligent.

In a car accident if you run a redlight or a stop sign you are negligent but your not justified.........am I making any sense, or just being too simple minded? I understand an accident, an accident with negligence, but justifed and negligent, I don't know? It sure seems like things become quickly overly complicated.
 
Last edited:
It may seem illogical, Hitthespot, but Frank Ettin is dead on. Whether a shooting is justified or not, and whehter the officers were negligent, may depend on "who's asking," as it were. I mentioned this briefly in an earlier post. Consider the following example:

Mikey Methhead, a convicted and violent felon, decides to rob a convenience store, using a stolen semiautomatic pistol. While he's in the process of robbing it, two police officers show up, and a gunfight ensues. One of the officers, Paul Patrol, fires one lone shot, which strikes Mikey, killing him. The bullet passes through Mikey and then strikes Carrie Cashier who works at the Quickie-Mart (as you might have guessed).
Click to expand...

1) If Mikey's estate attempts to sue Paul, it will likely bring the case under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming excessive force. Put another way, Mikey's estate will claim that Paul violated Mikey's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in that Paul's attempt to seize Mikey was unreasonable in that the force he used was excessive.

2) Carol, on the other hand, might sue Paul, claiming that he was negligent. Paul wasn't trying to seize Carol, so she will likely not make a Fourth Amendment claim.

Accordingly, even if Paul is found justified as to Mikey, he could still be found negligent as to Carol.

As an alternative, consider if Paul had to fire several shots. He might still be justified as to Mikey, but might still be considered negligent as to Carol.
 
Mr Mcgee,

Yea your saying the same thing Frank is. I think your both attorneys is what I think. (sorry just being funny). I understand that even with a justfied shooting there can be other circumstances. I guess an exaggerated example would be an officer clearly needs to defend himself and throws a hand grenade that hurts many, when a single shot would have sufficed. However I still say an officer who must defend his life and is cleared as a "justified shooting" in most cases should not be held accountable as negligent.


Let me also say as a side note since you and Frank are both staff members, that I have really enjoyed reading and very occasionally participating in the law section of the Firing Line, and I have also enjoyed both you and Franks participation and point of views on such a wide diversity of topics. I have found it educational and very informative. Even if you have to put up with simple minded people like me.
 
grizz223 Wrote:

Now having said all that if you think that we as law enforcement officers are not held to a higher standard you are very wrong.
Click to expand...

Really ? Then please explain this :

I just want you to know that it is necessary for us to have some peace of mind that if I'm doing my job to the best of my ability that I won't end up broke or in jail because of a decision I made in a split second.
Click to expand...

If I, as a "civilian" am involved in a defensive shooting situation, that is exactly the risk I face. Yet, you say:

I can guarantee you that even though the Officer would be found not guilty of negligence. Most departments down here would fire him or her because of liability.
Click to expand...

So, If I make any mistake during a defensive shooting, I can face financial ruin, prison, or both. If you make a mistake, you face a "disciplinary" action or, possibly get fired ?

If that is the case, then how can you possibly assert that LEOs are "held to a higher standard" ? You point out the many protections you have in place to give you "peace of mind" yet, fail to acknowledge that the average citizen has no such safety net in place, our fate lies with the criminal courts.

The Officers of the NYPD are very lucky that they have a very strong union.
Click to expand...

Too bad we, as civilians don't have that kind of representation, It would be nice to have our defensive shooting situations critiqued by an arbitration board rather than a trial jury.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
"I go where you did not want to go to do things you do not want to do."
Click to expand...

No, I'll go anywhere you will go,,,
But the legislators in my state won't allow it.

I will happily defend me and mine in any situation you can imagine,,,
So why do you assume that I will not?

It's this "We're better than the civvies" attitude that seems to be fueling the backlash in public sentiment that LEO's everywhere are getting lately...

You know nothing about me, yet you think you have been somewhere I have not...
Click to expand...

Right on brother,,,
This is the attitude I dislike the most,,,
And it's what is making citizens question the actions of their police forces.

Aarond

.
 
Salmoneye

"I go where you did not want to go to do things you do not want to do."

It's this "We're better than the civvies" attitude that seems to be fueling the backlash in public sentiment that LEO's everywhere are getting lately...

You know nothing about me, yet you think you have been somewhere I have not...

I stated in my post that I don't know you or what you have done. But as I stated unless you have done my job seen what I have seen you don't know me either. Unless you have watched them take away a friend in a body bag you don't know what it's like. I put my life on the line everyday. Do you?

To all the rest I do not think I'm better than any of you as far as I'm concerned you are all my brothers even Salmoneye.

Outcast
did you miss the part where unless you live in the Northeast most departments would fire you even though you did what you were supposed to do. Once you are fired no more protection. So now I lost my job can be sued for whatever I have. Can you please explain how this is not just as bad if not worse than what would happen to you??? I have seen many good officers lose their job and go to jail for a split second decision that the vast majority of people never have to make.Yet we do it every day and if you are lucky you never get hemmed up in something that is out of your control

With this post I am done with this thread if you want to debate my job any more pm me as I don't want to take up space fighting about what Law enforcement officer should or should not do.
 
grizz223 wrote:
So now I lost my job can be sued for whatever I have. Can you please explain how this is not just as bad if not worse than what would happen to you?
Click to expand...

It's really quite simple, if you use your weapon to defend yourself, or someone else, and make a mistake, you certainly stand the chance of being disciplined up to, or including termination of your employment. Would you be arrested ? Likely not. Would you be charged with a crime ? Likely not. Would you begin to drain your bank account immediately by having to retain an attorney ? No.

If I use a weapon to defend myself, or someone else, I have ( in the eyes of the Law ) committed a crime.

I will have to immediately : Hire an attorney, possibly appear in court, before a jury to prove my case was justified, and risk prison time. Even if I am justified, the financial drain will be enormous, if not complete financial ruin. Oh, and I would most likely be fired as well ( most employers will not like the time off you will need to handle your legal matters )

The only difference would be the civil aspect.

Your assertion was:

Now having said all that if you think that we as law enforcement officers are not held to a higher standard you are very wrong.
Click to expand...

I merely pointed out that you were incorrect, no "higher standard" exists. You have gone out of your way to prove my case for me, and I appreciate it.

I don't want to take up space fighting about what Law enforcement officer should or should not do.
Click to expand...

No fighting here, you have a job to do, and it has risks just like many others, I simply do not like to see someone claim a disparity where none exists.
 
Catch 22

I didn't read the previous 4 pages of comments before typing this response to the original post. So, with that in mind...

I THINK that I'd be motivated enough to try and settle if the badges would receive more training. That'd require a Law firm and negotations.

The problem with that line of thought is that law firms need a large slice of the expected monetary pie to stay in the trade. If sucessful, the city would take a monetary hit and they'd be less $ available to pay for municipal expenses.

'Catch 22'.

Now I'm going to go back and read the prior comments.

salty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top