Comments on: “Cop who shot Danroy Henry sues store where he allegedly got alcohol”

By: steve mansfield

steve mansfield — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:28:41 +0000

Henry deserved to get shot because he assaulted the officer with a deadly weapon, a vehicle, and inflicted a significant injury on him. While I have no problem with fining a liquor store for selling alcohol to an underaged or clearly intoxicated customer, to make the store strictly liable for any act committed by that customer subsequent to the sale is clearly absurd. I also speculate, given the proclivities of the Holder-led Justice Department, that if Mr. Hess were caucasian and the officer were African American there would be no interest in this matter on the part of the Feds.

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:59:59 +0000

Seems like this should be dismissed for lack of standing, and Rule 11 sanctions should be assessed.

By: Sam T

Sam T — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:35:35 +0000

Apparently, Henry hit Hess with a car and broke Hess’s knee cap. Hess is suing the liquor store under the theory that a store that breaks liquor laws by selling to an under-aged person is liable for everything that person does while intoxicated on that alcohol.

Assuming that argument holds water despite the intervening illegal behavior of Hess, doesn’t a person who takes employment as a police officer assume the risk of being injured on the job? That’s what all their increased benefits, early retirement, training, cool police toys, etc. are all about.

(PS the News 12 link isn’t free.)