I'm going to make this blog short. I just can't write much on this or I'm going to go nuts.

I heard an L.A. radio show today, before the Lakers/Celts game, -- they were talking about a case from 2005. I guess in Anaheim, some dude was running from the cops. They hit him with their car. He injured his leg during that. So, what did he do? You guessed it. He sued.

He won $2.5 million.

Well, he just got arrested for breaking his parole, and hanging out with gang members. He's now in jail (still with his millions).

His probation officer didn't speak with the media, but mentioned in a previous interview that he tried to get the guy to invest the money, and move into a better neighborhood.

But, this is the wonderfully crappy legal system we got. You can commit crimes and flee from the police. And, if they hurt you in their attempt to arrest you, you might become a millionaire.

Tim Russert wrote a book about his dad working hard at two jobs, one a garbage collector, to raise 10 kids.

Maybe it's easier to run from cops, and hope you get injured.

Comments

Josh Board June 20, 2008 @ 1:32 a.m.

I mean, that if someone is fleeing the police, THEY might be planning to do that. You never know. Therefore, the cops should do ANYTHING to stop them. If that means shooting, sending a German Shephard, or running them down, I'm all for it.

0

rickeysays June 19, 2008 @ 12:11 a.m.

This shows there is something wrong with the civil side of our justice system. This guy should not be able to profit from his decision to run from the police. The legislature should pass a law. If you run from the police, anything that happens after that is on you.

0

Josh Board June 19, 2008 @ 1:55 a.m.

Yes!!!! Rickey Says agrees with me. I'm marking this day on my calendar.

I think if you flee from the police, they should be able to shoot you. Or run you down. After all...what happens if you get away? You might beat the tar out of a baby, like that crazy person did the other day. Or, you take a hostage. If you are fleeing, you're up to know good.

0

JustWondering June 19, 2008 @ 7:56 a.m.

The only thing wrong with the courts are the judges who allow the people who sit on juries who make these outrageous awards. Judges have the power to set aside these decisions but choose not to act. Our culture has decided it's one of entitlements from the Government. "The government owes me this or that." Since jurors feel no connection to the money whatsoever why not just give him a few dollars. "It's not MY money!" So why not just give it away. Don't get me wrong, there are times when the government workers are wrong and the taxpayers should pay damages as the remedy. HOWEVER, when someone is fleeing from or committing a, criminal act we should NEVER reward this behavior. No, in fact, government should find ways of recovering the cost of law enforcement from the offenders. As more and more of my tax dollars are spent enforcing laws, I and others, as a law abiding citizens, are taxed to 30, 40 and up to 50 percent. It's time to recover the costs from those who CHOOSE to break the law. We need to place liens against future wages. If it drives them into poverty, so be it. If they don't like it here, leave and take your criminally stained fingers and thieving ways out of my pocket!

0

JohnnyVegas June 19, 2008 @ 8:06 a.m.

Oh, how the uninformed reach ignorant conclusions.

The OC case was where a HS edcuated cop used excessive force over a minor incident.

I am sure "Just Wondering" would be happy to not sue a GED educated cop if that cop blew his leg off over a traffic ticket. It is funny how an attitutde changes when the complainer is not the subject of a dirty cop.

But blame the "jurors". I guess we can blame those same jurors for getting it wrong 99.3% of the time when they find criminals guilty of misdemeanors also.

Problem is there is a little document our country is based on called the Constitution that prevents such nonsense.

Hey "Just Wondering", since you are being "taxed to 30, 40 and up to 50 percent", may I suggest a remedy, STOP paying GED and HS educatd cops, FF and prison guards $200K and more per year, that would go a long way in reducing taxes.

0

Josh Board June 19, 2008 @ 10:08 a.m.

I think Just Wondering nailed it. Although, I don't like knocking the cops education. Sure, a lot of officers aren't college educated. But that doesn't bother me. I agree with everything else in that post.

What a lot of people don't realize, is what "excessive force" means, when used by an officer.

For example, there was an officer about a year ago. He was trying to handcuff a 16-year-old African-American girl, who was big for her age. She was out past curfew, and I think she had been drinking. Not positive, though. He kept asking her (nicely, too), to put her hands behind her back. She wouldn't do it. He asked repeatedly. Finally, he gets forceful. When that starts to happen, she starts to get mad, and she gets forceful. He then punches her, and then maces her.

Now, you watch the video, and 90% of the population jumps to two conclusions: cop using excessive force on a young woman. And/or: white cop/black suspect.

Neither of these, are relevant. The ONE RELEVANT thing is, suspect not following cops orders.

Now, one guy about 10 years ago, was pulled over by the cops. He was on the Chargers. He was on Friars Road, had to lay down on the ground, and was cuffed. He was then let go, because he did nothing wrong. Cops say he fit the description. The Charger player said he thinks he was profiled, and merely pulled over because of the color of his skin. Well, guess what? The Charger (surprisingly) played it right. He did as the officer said. He didn't mouth off. And later, he filed a complaint.

And you know what? If the officer was correct, that he fit a description, they should be able to provide proof of a call they got, or something else.

0

NachoDaddy June 19, 2008 @ 8:44 p.m.

DUDE! YOU CAN'T SAY, "You might beat the tar out of a baby,"

COME! AWNNN!

0

JustWondering June 20, 2008 @ 10:41 a.m.

No JohnnyV, BillyBH or Bruce, I actually place responsibility on the Harvard/Boalt Hall, well educated attorneys like you who are willing and able to twist and the facts presented to lay jurors who are easily confused or swayed.

You and I both know most juries consist or under-employed or retired folks, many who really don't want to be there in the first place. Others, who are typically more educated, get themselves excused for hardship other nonsensical reasons allowed by judges. But lets say one or two stay. Attorneys, like you, bounce them with peremptory or challenge for cause. I know it your “duty” to do your best for your client, but whatever happened to doing what’s morally right. You see it’s really all driven by greed and accumulation of wealth.

But don't take me the wrong way. I am NOT advocating professional jurors for they could never meet the Constitutional requirement of "peers". I object to the Judges who allow ridiculous argument, preclude evidentiary items mitigating liability or summations filled with statements without foundation. Especially, when our lay jurors, can't seem to discern obvious facts from novel, but fictional, thoughts placed into record.

Case on point; I will watch with keen interest our local civil litigation currently underway.

0

anony_mous June 20, 2008 @ 12:18 p.m.

quote from #4 "The OC case was where a HS edcuated cop used excessive force over a minor incident." OK johnnyvegas. You're a lawyer and this is a court, the court of public opinion. What proof do you have and who is your source for the information on this cops educational backround? Give us the specifics. What high school did the officer graduate from, what year, how do you know he has not attended college,? Put up or shut up. Prove that you know by giving the facts or just admit you are making another one of your "welfare queen" generalizations because of your hatred for public servants. BTW I agree the award was outrageous, but I also don't believe pd are allowed to use deadly force to catch a fleeing suspect unless his flight is endangering themsevles or the public. I'm pretty sure running someone down with a vehicle is considered deadly force; at least it is if you or I would try to run over a cop or two.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close