Woman sues WoodbridgePD for saving her life.

S

Skadoosh

New member
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/woman_held_at_knifepoint_in_wo.html

excerpt:
WOODBRIDGE — She was grabbed by a desperate parolee and who held her with a knife to her throat in Woodbridge Center Mall until a police officer shot and killed the man.

Now the woman, Ellen Shane, 62, of Carteret, plans to sue the township for $5 million, claiming it failed to protect public safety and that she was injured as a result of the officer’s acts.

Both Shane and her husband, Ronald Shane, "are suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and both have been dramatized from this incident," according to the tort claim notice filed by their lawyer, David Corrigan of Eatontown.

The claim states the couple are seeking treatment from a psychologist and a psychiatrist.

Mayor John McCormac stood by the officer’s actions. "No lawsuit will change the fact our officer is a hero for saving her life," he said.

.......

"Instead of attempting to resolve the situation, Barrett took out his gun and shot the suspect while he was holding Mrs. Shane," the paper states.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....

Woman grabbed, dragged by her hair into a store, then held with a knife to her throat by a desperate parolee. Cop arrives and fires a single shot from thirty feet into kidnapper's head, dropping him instantly. Woman is "dramatized" by the incident and is suing the police for not attempting to resolve the situation before shooting the kidnapper dead.

This is why I am convinced that even a justifiable shooting is going to be a huge litigation headache. Especially for a civilian.
 
The police have no obligation to protect anyone personally, and she was traumatized by the assailant. Case dismissed. Let's hope they don't settle, make her shyster lawyer work a bunch of hours for free.
 
Both Shane and her husband, Ronald Shane, "are suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and both have been dramatized from this incident," according to the tort claim notice filed by their lawyer, David Corrigan of Eatontown.
Click to expand...
Attorney Corrigan is either confused or has a very deficient grasp of the English language -- or both. I very much doubt that either the woman or her husband was "dramatized" by the incident ... but they are certainly "dramatizing" it after the fact.

It alleges township police, Barrett in particular, failed to provide proper safeguards or warning, violated state, county and local policies pertaining to shoplifting and were negligent in hiring, training and supervising personnel.
Click to expand...
We're looking at an attorney who is just begging to get slapped for filing a frivolous lawsuit. "Failed to provide proper safeguards or warnings"? Easy fix -- post signs on all telephone poles and building entrances in and around the town: "WARNING! Any citizen may at any time be grabbed by an armed felon. Enter at your own risk."

Done. Everyone has now been provided "proper warning."
 
Last edited:
"Instead of attempting to resolve the situation, Barrett took out his gun and shot the suspect while he was holding Mrs. Shane," the paper states.
Click to expand...

That's what we call a "false dichotomy," kids! Study your logical fallacies tonight, there will be a quiz tomorrow... ;)

Now let's try a little grammar. How can we change that sentence to make it true? Yes, Billy?

"To resolve the situation, Barrett took out his gun and shot the suspect while he was holding Mrs. Shane."

Very good, Billy! You get a gold star.

pax :D
 
It's New Joisy.

Town is going to pay something.
Click to expand...

Being a native myself (NJ Tnpk Exit 5), I concur that this lawsuit will likely result in some kind of monetary award/settlement for the woman. NJ is living up to its unofficial state motto... "I'll sue you!".
 
The claim states the couple are seeking treatment from a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
Click to expand...

Is there a psychologist or psychiatrist mentioned who has diagnosed them according to the DSM-IV criteria?

Seeking?

A professional who will stand up for them in court?

Yes, it is drama.
 
I was told long ago, that anything a LEO does can basically get them sued, even doing nothing at all.

In my opinion, I feel this will probably be a private out of court settlement because most towns/cities feel its cheaper to pay them to go away then to fight the suit and win.
 
They are going to get 'go away' money.

It will not be much, but it should not be anything.

The problem is that defending in court costs money.

Even for the government.

The attorneys on the state payroll already should have work.
 
We live in such a society of entitlement. We think that if something goes wrong, we are always entitled to $ compensation akin to winning the lottery. I don't see where she was injured as a result of the officer's actions. I also don't understand that if she is suing, why she isn't suing the mall where the officer was employed at the time of the shooting.
 
It is nonsense exactly like this that made me not pursue a career in law enforcement. They don't sue you in the military, much.

So the cop is chasing the shoplifter and he grabs a hostage. Cop puts down shoplifter/ kidnapper.

You are welcome.

Lawsuit against the cop? Completely disgraceful. She should be ashamed of herself.
 
In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.

Sorry she was "dramatized," but she became so by the actions of her kidnapper.
 
And that is just it. The parolee that took her hostage that caused her all the "drama" isn't likely to have had a large fortune and hence not have a large estate that she can sue in order to be set for life. She isn't going to sue herself. So she sues the last third, the third with the most money, in hopes of living in comfort forever.
 
One should determine if he ate any junk food at the mall before committing the crime. I would be that artificial ingredients and sugar made him crazy.

Definitely grounds for a suit.
 
Many things I would say about this situation don't fall within the guide lines of the forum. if she had filed such a lawsuit out here, it would be most likely laughed out of court.
 
The city of Anchorage use to have an insurance to protect them from suits regarding the police dept.

The insurance company would estimate what it would cost to fight the suit and settle for that or less.

Then the city became self insured, It already had a City Attorney, and attorney fees are the biggest cost in a suit, so the City decided to fight everything.

It cut down on BS law suits big time.

This all could be eliminated with a "looser pays" in civil cases. Most are these suits are filed in hopes of a settlement out of court.

If the tax payers would wise up and realize they are the one's paying for this BS it would be a lot easier to get a looser pays law passed.
 
There's a whole bunch more parolees in that town, the judge could just give her a brand new desperate parolee with a knife and instruct the police to limit their interactions to verbal only. She wins. Case closed.
 
Let's avoid the snark and cheap shots at New Jersey, shall we please.

You may have noticed that a bunch of posts have disappeared.
 
nothing new here....LEO's know one thing before probation ends: in and during your career you'll be under investigation at some point(sometimes without knowledge) and you will be sued - as long as you were acting "within the scope of your employment" (which said officer was), it's business as usual
 
The city of Anchorage use to have an insurance to protect them from suits regarding the police dept.
Click to expand...

they usually have this and lawyers too which handle this. that is exactly what this lady is hoping...to settle out of court and get a payday(whether she is right or wrong)...she just might find this gamble won't pay and she'll be out her own lawyer fees and other time wasted. good luck to her

The problem is that defending in court costs money.

Even for the government.
Click to expand...

^separate forum member poster^

there are people who have a career handling this very issue...I think this woman will find this out the hard way....there are instances in this world where paydays can be reached via 'go away money' as you mentioned in that same post: mcdonalds coffee, walmart merchandise falling from stack, etc, etc,....this isn't one of them(in my opinion):)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top