Comments on: Wounded in shootout, sheriff’s deputies sue widow

By: Nicolas Martin

Nicolas Martin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:52:33 +0000

People insist that this person had a disease. What disease? What test diagnoses this disease? Blood, urine, CT? Putting the label of disease on misbehavior is as American as apple pie, but scientific it ain’t.

By: Merrikay Boylan

Merrikay Boylan — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:09:50 +0000

The are not suing the gunman’s estate. They are suing the estate of the victim, the gunman’s father who was shot, and his widow.

By: JTT

JTT — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:25:55 +0000

Well suing the gunman’s estate is different from suing the widow. I don’t object at all to the suit against the estate.

By: Rick's Cafe

Rick's Cafe — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:31:49 +0000

Since the ‘game’ was started, it only makes sense for the widow to counter-sue the policemen, dept, etal. – obviously – wrongful death, loss of human comfort, companionship, etc,etc,etc for the excessive use of force (should have tazered the guy). I’d guess the municipality has deeper pockets than the widow.

By: Mo

Mo — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:45:57 +0000

Uhhh…what part about “sheriff’s deputy” did they miss when they applied for the job? Didn’t they realize it is a dangerous profession and that, most likely, they’d come up against a nutcase or two with a weapon?

This is unconscionable…public servants such as police officers and firefighters should NOT be allowed to sue the public for on-the-job injuries. What would be the point of even having them if they could sue for every “emotionally distressing” incident they encountered? That’s PART OF THEIR JOB!!!

This is just more proof that society is going downhill at an alarming rate. Everyone is out to profit, no matter how stupid the means to reap said profit may be.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:34:10 +0000

GHK,

It is very difficult for a family to get hospitalization for their very sick children. The problem that concerns me is not the legal duty to seek care, but the legal impediments to those seeking care.

If Eddy Mies was a threat to himself and others, then the police authorities had a duty to seek confinement. If they didn’t, then I can’t understand their claim that the family failed to control him.

By: nevins

nevins — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:18:25 +0000

Police, fire, ambulance and others with public service jobs are inherently dangerous activities. As a public we should see that they have adequate financial security through life-insurance, disability, and workman’s comp. It is strongly in the public interest that these guys have such reasonable coverage that they will rush toward fire, gunshots, and other hazards that the rest of us should be retreating from.
However, those benefits should come with one big string attached; the waiver of the right to sue anyone. They can waive accepting benefits if they feel compelled to sue someone. It seems unreasonable to be doubly compensated for predictable job related events.

By: Bob Neal

Bob Neal — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:16:11 +0000

You have a duty to report a crime or a fire. So you report the emergency, tell the FD you don’t want them to fight it b/c you are worried someone might get hurt? Better yet, you pass out liability waivers as they unload from their trucks or police cars, telling them they can’t act without signing.

Complete madness.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:11:29 +0000

Rather than risk injury, why didn’t they just call the police? 🙂

I could have sworn that it was the job of the police to deal with these types of situations. Isn’t that the risk that they assume when they take the job? Will firemen now sue if you carelessly start a fire in your house and they get hurt putting it out?

By: David Wisniewski

David Wisniewski — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:36:23 +0000

I find this interesting. If the police don’t have a duty to protect you as an individual, only “society”, how does the widow have a duty to protect those individual officers? You can’t have a negligence claim w/o first having a duty to that person.