off duty officer shoots at fleeing car

[Fargo]

Lets not pretend that the only difference between a police officer and every other citizen in the country is the shiny thing on their chest. I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and sate that qualified immunity was not developed because a judge somewhere really liked cops.

Police officers act under the authority of law, doesn't seem inappropriate that there should be law to protect an officer acting within and for it. People don't sue only individual officers because there's no money in it. Just like they don't sue McDonald's employees for serving hot coffee.

I agree, but what you describe is a compromise on the absolute truth. The standard to sue a cop requires a bunch more proof of a bunch more "truth" than suing anyone else.

There are many cases where the courts find a police officer to have acted unlawfully, yet the officer wins automatically because of q.i. How is that not a compromise?

 

[Fargo]

Maybe if we convinced City Legal that our reputation is worth fighting for, that refusing to settle righteous cases and demanding plaintiffs to pay legal costs when they loose, will result in fewer suites. Right now it's open season for free money paid by the taxpayers.

Maybe, but city legal answers to elected officials not to the police. Just like police officers don't answer to the individual taxpayer.

Don't get me wrong, IMO IMPD has been shafted by the Marion co politicians as long as I have lived here. That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that there are very good reasons to settle this case. It does not appear to be some sort of slam dunk in front of a jury.

 

[Denny347]

I agree, but what you describe is a compromise on the absolute truth. The standard to sue a cop requires a bunch more proof of a bunch more "truth" than suing anyone else.

There are many cases where the courts find a police officer to have acted unlawfully, yet the officer wins automatically because of q.i. How is that not a compromise?

Proof? What proof? I was sued Federally (and they settled) for 30 pages of 100% made up lies. There was no proof other than his lies, no pictures, no witnesses, nothing and it made it past Summary Judgement. Sometimes the officer acted improperly but was due to negligent training or similar and the department is at fault, not the officer. QI is far from a shield that we hide behind nor does it lessen the sting when I am hauled to Federal Court as a defendant knowing that all I have built COULD go away.

 

[Fargo]

Proof? What proof? I was sued Federally (and they settled) for 30 pages of 100% made up lies. There was no proof other than his lies, no pictures, no witnesses, nothing and it made it past Summary Judgement. Sometimes the officer acted improperly but was due to negligent training or similar and the department is at fault, not the officer. QI is far from a shield that we hide behind nor does it lessen the sting when I am hauled to Federal Court as a defendant knowing that all I have built COULD go away.

Summary judgement is not a factual determination, it is merely a determination of whether of not there is any legally possible way for one side to win assuming everything it alleges is true. It sounds like the case was settled before the "proof" part. Not knowing anything about it, I can't speculate as to why.

 

[phylodog]

I agree, but what you describe is a compromise on the absolute truth. The standard to sue a cop requires a bunch more proof of a bunch more "truth" than suing anyone else.

There are many cases where the courts find a police officer to have acted unlawfully, yet the officer wins automatically because of q.i. How is that not a compromise?

I support everyone's right to sue a cop. If it really requires so much more proof and truth then why settle? The lawyers are on the payroll, I'm sure its easier to sit behind a desk and write checks than it is to do the job but if the mountain of evidence required isn't present it shouldn't really be all that difficult to get the case thrown out. They don't though which encourages more bogus lawsuits and the racket rolls on. Somebody is making good money off of it.

 

[Fargo]

I support everyone's right to sue a cop. If it really requires so much more proof and truth then why settle? The lawyers are on the payroll, I'm sure its easier to sit behind a desk and write checks than it is to do the job but if the mountain of evidence required isn't present it shouldn't really be all that difficult to get the case thrown out. They don't though which encourages more bogus lawsuits and the racket rolls on. Somebody is making good money off of it.

I don't work for or live in Marion co but I can tell you that one big jury verdict against the city tends to result in more lawsuits than many smaller settlements. Beyond that, they aren't my cases so I'm not going to opine as to why city legal does what it does.

 

[in625shooter]

Proof? What proof? I was sued Federally (and they settled) for 30 pages of 100% made up lies. There was no proof other than his lies, no pictures, no witnesses, nothing and it made it past Summary Judgement. Sometimes the officer acted improperly but was due to negligent training or similar and the department is at fault, not the officer. QI is far from a shield that we hide behind nor does it lessen the sting when I am hauled to Federal Court as a defendant knowing that all I have built COULD go away.

^^THIS^^ In one of my cases it got signed off by a Federal Judge so I could be named in a lawsuit aginst myself and 8 other folks as well as the Agency, and all I did was put handcuffs on the guy AFTER he got his rear kicked by someone he was tryng to kill, the guy suing had a weapon, went after the subject, subject took the weapon away and beat the dog do do out of him. And all of it was on video and I am getting sued, That one worked out for me and everyone else but on any moment an Agency can say "It is not in our best interest to represent you.....(and they might add Good Luck)

 

[Fargo]

^^THIS^^ In one of my cases it got signed off by a Federal Judge so I could be named in a lawsuit aginst myself and 8 other folks as well as the Agency, and all I did was put handcuffs on the guy AFTER he got his rear kicked by someone he was tryng to kill, the guy suing had a weapon, went after the subject, subject took the weapon away and beat the dog do do out of him. And all of it was on video and I am getting sued, That one worked out for me and everyone else but on any moment an Agency can say "It is not in our best interest to represent you.....(and they might add Good Luck)

So you won based off the proof?

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I support everyone's right to sue a cop. If it really requires so much more proof and truth then why settle? The lawyers are on the payroll, I'm sure its easier to sit behind a desk and write checks than it is to do the job but if the mountain of evidence required isn't present it shouldn't really be all that difficult to get the case thrown out. They don't though which encourages more bogus lawsuits and the racket rolls on. Somebody is making good money off of it.

This is the way it appears to me also. Why leave a comfy office high in the city county building to go to court and defend the city. It has been shown the settlement's get paid out with little resistance and Marion county is now a mark for a payday for lawyers, criminals and crappy drivers.

 

[in625shooter]

So you won based off the proof?

Never won, the AUSA got it thrown out after 2 dates because it was that crazy off base. My point is the agency could have chosen not to represent us and it would have been out of our pockets. The Bargining unit folks might have had the Union provide an attorney in that case but not ever officer has a union to cover them in that case.

So while LEO's have a system in place it doesn't always cover them. I could tell you others that have not faired to well but won't go into any of those in a public place, geneic or otherwise.

 

[Fargo]

Never won, the AUSA got it thrown out after 2 dates because it was that crazy off base. My point is the agency could have chosen not to represent us and it would have been out of our pockets. The Bargining unit folks might have had the Union provide an attorney in that case but not ever officer has a union to cover them in that case.

So while LEO's have a system in place it doesn't always cover them. I could tell you others that have not faired to well but won't go into any of those in a public place, geneic or otherwise.

Not entirely clear how that is not a win.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing we need to take away protections for law-enforcement or anything of the kind. My point is simply that there are compromises going both ways and that arguing that they need to go away in one direction because of "absolute truth" is a very slippery slope.

 

[in625shooter]

Not entirely clear how that is not a win.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing we need to take away protections for law-enforcement or anything of the kind. My point is simply that there are compromises going both ways and that arguing that they need to go away in one direction because of "absolute truth" is a very slippery slope.

Guess I used a different approch. Anytime you are served with papers to go to court, Attorney gets hired to represent you (either on your dime or your agencies) goes to court and gets the lawsuit thrown out , the other side against you looses their court action so it IS a your win I guess you could say. But it was such an early stage we found out after it was over, all the work for us was done in the background.

 

[Denny347]

Not related to the OP but it is to the overall discussion. My friend takes a bullet in the foot, car takes rounds, suspect gets killed, family sues the City claiming he was unarmed and shot in the back. They are looking for a payday. We will see what the City pays out. Hopefully they fight it no matter the cost. The City has created the environment that makes it ok to file a lawsuit for anything, no matter how asinine. Joe Public will usually never face such a thing as no one wants to sue someone with no money.

Family of man killed in officer-involved shooting files wrongful death lawsuit | Fox 59

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not related to the OP but it is to the overall discussion. My friend takes a bullet in the foot, car takes rounds, suspect gets killed, family sues the City claiming he was unarmed and shot in the back. They are looking for a payday. We will see what the City pays out. Hopefully they fight it no matter the cost. The City has created the environment that makes it ok to file a lawsuit for anything, no matter how asinine. Joe Public will usually never face such a thing as no one wants to sue someone with no money.

Family of man killed in officer-involved shooting files wrongful death lawsuit | Fox 59

According to the article you linked, the city plans to 'aggressively fight' the lawsuit. Hopefully, the city will grow a pair and put a stop to this nonsense. One wonders whether his family is really this obtuse or simply plans a spirited attempt to milk the situation for cash in full knowledge that their position is full of, well, something other than reason.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

According to the article you linked, the city plans to 'aggressively fight' the lawsuit. Hopefully, the city will grow a pair and put a stop to this nonsense. One wonders whether his family is really this obtuse or simply plans a spirited attempt to milk the situation for cash in full knowledge that their position is full of, well, something other than reason.

My guess is the family was inundated with letters and calls from attorney's saying they could get money. My city truck was rear ended, no damage to the city vehicle and I received a couple of letters from attorney's.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My guess is the family was inundated with letters and calls from attorney's saying they could get money. My city truck was rear ended, no damage to the city vehicle and I received a couple of letters from attorney's.

I feel left out. Several years ago (rebuilding US 40 through Plainfield) my company truck was rear-ended, as in your case with no discernible damage, although the hitch did punch a nice square hole in the other vehicle's front bumper, and all I got was to buy the young lady a snack at McD's and give her a big brother talk reminding her that we were all 16 years old once and made similar mistakes. No contact from a single lawyer!

 

[in625shooter]

I feel left out. Several years ago (rebuilding US 40 through Plainfield) my company truck was rear-ended, as in your case with no discernible damage, although the hitch did punch a nice square hole in the other vehicle's front bumper, and all I got was to buy the young lady a snack at McD's and give her a big brother talk reminding her that we were all 16 years old once and made similar mistakes. No contact from a single lawyer!

Thats the way it should be but as you said "Several Years ago" Today she whould have called her parents, updated her facebook and twitter within 45 seconds and then litigation would be pursued against you and your company and it didn't matter tha you were stopped. It seems Most Everyone is out for some form of subsidy and f they see a corporit or buisness vehicle/building it is incintive.

 

[ewoodworth1]

Wow, it's been awhile since I've been on this thread.

And justice was almost served. Would have rather seen Kreb's in jail than a fine to the city. Thank you ewoodworth1 for the updates!

Couple settles excessive force lawsuit with Indianapolis for $370,000 - TheIndyChannel.com

If Krebs would have been jailed there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.

 

[vitamink]

Do you have some sort of link or court documents that show he didn't get hit by the car or what anyone's statements were?

I think it is safe to assume that he did believe his house was being burglarized as I know I would. Whether or not he was hit by the car, or any of the statements made is unknown by anyone. The only info we have is from a lawsuit, where an attorney who stands to make a lot of money is saying what happened. Regardless the truth of the matter is he believed someone was there to cause harm, the kid believed he was at a party. Whether or not the reserve got fired, there should have been a lawsuit to cover the damages (a new car). I'm just not sure the new car should be a Lamborghini Aventador.

Keep in mind this is Marion county where a convicted violent felon can shoot someone (in self defense) and not get charged with being in possession of a handgun.

 

[Fargo]

Keep in mind this is Marion county where a convicted violent felon can shoot someone (in self defense) and not get charged with being in possession of a handgun.

That is actually perfectly legal in certain circumstances. Self-defense can be a defense to SVF in possession.