Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

    We all know that a LEO has no legal obligation to protect a citizen, but this deputy has turned this on it's head. The deputy has filed a lawsuit against the person who called 9 1 1 , because he received injuries when responding and the caller did not inform 9 1 1 operators of the danger he was walking into. Let us hope the courts will use just a smidgen of common sense and throw this case out.


    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=9207650
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    The deputy says he was injured when she made that call from her subdivision. In this lawsuit, he claims the homeowner failed to adequately warn 9-1-1 of the dangerous situation he was walking into. The lawsuit just filed in Harris County is raising some eyebrows. Sheriff's deputy Brady Pullen is suing a woman named Camina Figueroa after a 9-1-1 call the deputy responded to at Figueroa's Katy home back in December. The lawsuit claims Pullen was violently and physically attacked by a man who'd allegedly been using bath salts as a drug for several days.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-16-2013 at 04:01 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Injured on the job? Recourse is OSHA.

    Counter-suit is in order ... and he can no longer claim immunity.

    Dummy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Well, if this case is even allowed into court, then OCers should be able to personally sue anyone who has suffered injury do to a PWAG call.


    Operator: "This is 911, what's your emergency?"
    Caller: "I see a (Person)Man, with a gun on his hip, walking down the street... He's scary"
    O: "We'll need your name, address, and phone number"
    C:"Jane Doe, 1234 smith street, Springfield, usa, 555 555 8874"
    ....
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    23
    Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
    Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
    off the top of my head, I have seen others.

    The police have no duty to respond, no duty to protect, no duty of any kind to any citizen.

    So the cop was there on official police business through no fault of the caller (who is simply a source of information). The cop claims he was injured by the deliberate action of the person he was there to apprehend.

    This has nothing to do with the caller. I hope she sues him and his lawyer for going along with the absurdity (is that possible?)..

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I'm going to stop after this: "he claims the homeowner failed to adequately warn 9-1-1 of the dangerous situation he was walking into" --

    For the claim to be valid the plaintiff will have to prove, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that the woman was properly trained to assess the degree of danger. If that flies, then the police will no longer be "the only ones professional enough to" anything.

    I'm sure there is more joy that cold be had taking the news article apart, let alone the lawsuit itself. But this ought to be enough for folks to chew on for quite a while before moving on to other aspects of what this cop, the police, and the courts will have to stipulate to in order to move forward.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Perhaps we should let them screw up the system - perhaps it'll open doors for competing systems. Just like the post office scenario. Sure, we're already paying to keep the post office running, but it's so bad that we still end up using competing systems. Eventually, maybe the post office is going to get so bad that it has to be shut down completely. Maybe the same can happen with some crappy law enforcement agencies. It's wishful thinking, I don't think we're quite to that point yet.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    To cops: don't worry, this is why I won't be calling 911 until the only thing left to do is file a report.

    Of course, that begs the question exactly what y'all are good for in the first place.
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-16-2013 at 09:00 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    To cops: don't worry, this is why I won't be calling 911 until the only thing left to do is file a report.

    Of course, that begs the question exactly what y'all are good for in the first place.

    Often times it is just for record keeping......it's pretty much how I view it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    begs the question
    I can't often trouble myself to bother trying to correct this anymore. There are just too many people aping the misuse of a phrase which isn't even related to their intended meaning. I even hear supposedly-educated reporters on NPR glibly demonstrating their ignorance of the expression.

    You used "raises the question" for decades without any trouble. Why can't you just go back to saying that, and leave formal logic alone?

    P.S. Yes, language evolves. And rights erode. Inevitability does not excuse willful participation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm going to stop after this: "he claims the homeowner failed to adequately warn 9-1-1 of the dangerous situation he was walking into" --

    For the claim to be valid the plaintiff will have to prove, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that the woman was properly trained to assess the degree of danger. If that flies, then the police will no longer be "the only ones professional enough to" anything.

    I'm sure there is more joy that cold be had taking the news article apart, let alone the lawsuit itself. But this ought to be enough for folks to chew on for quite a while before moving on to other aspects of what this cop, the police, and the courts will have to stipulate to in order to move forward.

    stay safe.
    I would think that an untrained and under-equipped non-LEO would be able to make this kind of claim if they were requested to help in a similar situation. Otherwise, the deputy is trained and equipped...and the 911 operator is also trained to gather as much information as possible and relay it to the LEO. Is the deputy going to claim a lack of training? If so, sounds like a suit against his boss...the Sheriff.

    I agree...sounds like a counter suit for harassment is in order, and since the deputy "opened the door" I would think that qualified immunity just flew out...
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I would think that an untrained and under-equipped non-LEO would be able to make this kind of claim if they were requested to help in a similar situation. Otherwise, the deputy is trained and equipped...and the 911 operator is also trained to gather as much information as possible and relay it to the LEO. Is the deputy going to claim a lack of training? If so, sounds like a suit against his boss...the Sheriff.

    I agree...sounds like a counter suit for harassment is in order, and since the deputy "opened the door" I would think that qualified immunity just flew out...
    Well, one has some degree of immunity regarding the case filings and testimony but I'm sure that this guy has been running the mouth outside the courthouse opening himself up for a serious defamation or slander counter suit.

    Anyone have the complaint or a link to it? Be happy to read it. What an idiot though.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    I can't often trouble myself to bother trying to correct this anymore. There are just too many people aping the misuse of a phrase which isn't even related to their intended meaning. I even hear supposedly-educated reporters on NPR glibly demonstrating their ignorance of the expression.

    You used "raises the question" for decades without any trouble. Why can't you just go back to saying that, and leave formal logic alone?

    P.S. Yes, language evolves. And rights erode. Inevitability does not excuse willful participation.


    "Begging the question" is an informal fallacy, and the colloquial use of the phrase is perfectly acceptable (this is to say, it syntactically conveys its intended meaning).

    You know, none of this is new to me, if you couldn't tell by my post history.

  14. #14
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post


    "Begging the question" is an informal fallacy, and the colloquial use of the phrase is perfectly acceptable (this is to say, it syntactically conveys its intended meaning).

    You know, none of this is new to me, if you couldn't tell by my post history.
    First, do not confuse the distinction between formal and informal fallacies with the discipline of formal logic ("formal" having considerably divergent meanings in each context). Both categories of fallacy fall under the rubric of formal logic. Do more than skim a Wikipedia article before you attempt to correct.

    Second, I'm aware of your post history, and I'm aware that a minority of authorities consider the misuse sufficiently ubiquitous to excuse it. I maintain that you should know better. That a whole lot of fat chicks wear "skinny" jeans doesn't make it okay for fat chicks to wear "skinny" jeans. You should know better.

    Finally, colloquially "acceptable" or not, it is an ignorant misuse of any definition of the verb to beg. At best, you would have to say that something "begs raising the question". "Begs the question" as a bare construct, with the meaning intended by those who don't know better, is nonsensical. You should know better.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Do more than skim a Wikipedia article before you attempt to correct.
    I didn't even click your damn link, nor do I find you pedantry stimulating.

    Which, of course, begs the question why I am even continuing to respond.
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-18-2013 at 08:43 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740

    Re: Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Which, of course, begs the question why I am even continuing to respond.
    Because you're a generally intelligent and knowledgeable person, you were embarrassed at being called out, you tried to cover, I didn't buy it, and now you're being defensive. "Whoops, my mistake" is the proper and respectable way to respond to correction.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am suitably impressed with everyone's intelligence and knowledge.

    Not.

  18. #18
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740

    Re: Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am suitably impressed with everyone's intelligence and knowledge.

    Not.
    I see you're still behaving like an ass.

    Moving on.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Just pointing out the pseudo-intellectualism that has derailed the thread. If you see that as behaving like an ass, so be it. I don't care.

    However, it is you, among others who have hijacked the thread.

    I won't participate any more in your hijacking. It has been sufficiently highlighted, so I will move on (whether you do or not), back to the subject at hand.

  20. #20
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, one has some degree of immunity regarding the case filings and testimony but I'm sure that this guy has been running the mouth outside the courthouse opening himself up for a serious defamation or slander counter suit.

    Anyone have the complaint or a link to it? Be happy to read it. What an idiot though.
    201347622 - PULLEN, BRADY vs. FIGUEROA, CAMINA (Court 190)

    http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/edocs...1k+Rxrm9v+UUk=
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Given that there is no "duty/responsibility" for the police to respond or protect a person per court rulings, it seems that this deputy voluntarily entered the dangerous situation himself. I would think there are only a few responsible parties (in no particular order):

    1) The deputy
    2) The deputy's TO
    3) The deputy's supervisor
    4) The Sheriff
    5) The 911 dispatcher
    6) The person who actually assaulted the deputy

    I would sincerely hope that the deputy loses civil immunity for the filing of the suit. Clearly, the deputy would get paid during recovery and likely the medical bills would be picked up by the SO, the county or the state, so the only thing left to go after is "pain and suffering", which is an occupational hazard. So, by bringing a suit lets hope that Deputy Pullen is counter sued for harassment and abuse of process (if that exists in Texas).

    IMO, Deputy Pullen should seek another line of employment if getting into a fight without adequate warning is such a problem. Perhaps accounting or bookkeeping might be a bit safer and more predictable??
    Last edited by carolina guy; 08-19-2013 at 12:07 AM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Given that there is no "duty/responsibility" for the police to respond or protect a person per court rulings, it seems that this deputy voluntarily entered the dangerous situation himself. I would think there are only a few responsible parties (in no particular order):

    1) The deputy
    2) The deputy's TO
    3) The deputy's supervisor
    4) The Sheriff
    5) The 911 dispatcher
    6) The person who actually assaulted the deputy

    I would sincerely hope that the deputy loses civil immunity for the filing of the suit. Clearly, the deputy would get paid during recovery and likely the medical bills would be picked up by the SO, the county or the state, so the only thing left to go after is "pain and suffering", which is an occupational hazard. So, by bringing a suit lets hope that Deputy Pullen is counter sued for harassment and abuse of process (if that exists in Texas).

    IMO, Deputy Pullen should seek another line of employment if getting into a fight without adequate warning is such a problem. Perhaps accounting or bookkeeping might be a bit safer and more predictable??
    He won't need to get another job he will get medically retired with full benifits for PTSD on the job. He will spend the next 20-30 years fishing off his boat.
    Last edited by DocWalker; 08-19-2013 at 03:27 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    He won't need to get another job he will get medically retired with full benifits for PTSD on the job. He will spend the next 20-30 years fishing of his boat.
    ^^^THIS! Another civil servant piglet, sucking off the teats of the tax payer forever more..
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 08-19-2013 at 02:29 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Because you're a generally intelligent and knowledgeable person, you were embarrassed at being called out, you tried to cover, I didn't buy it, and now you're being defensive. "Whoops, my mistake" is the proper and respectable way to respond to correction.
    You're missing the part that I reject your "correction" in the first place.

    I actually gave you a chance when I read all there is to offer at http://begthequestion.info. Unfortunately, I find it utterly without merit; pedantry at its absolute worst. As I said, "begs the question" syntactically conveys its intended meaning in the colloquial context.

    Moreover, the objection that "dilutes" or replaces its original meaning (as a translation from the latin) is frivolous, as the contexts are so immediately distinct that there is never apt to be any confusion.

    That some might be unaware of the logical connotations is simply a product of their being untrained in rhetoric (something I am not), and would equally apply to any other named fallacy. It's not a product of "misuse" of the term "begs the question" or confusion resulting therefrom.

    In any case you've failed to persuade me as to the merits of your position and so this discussion is worthless from either perspective.

    Now, this is one of those (rare) occasions where I accept eye95's indirect criticism of myself and so will refrain from further commentary.
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-19-2013 at 03:40 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    You're missing the part that I reject your "correction" in the first place.

    I actually gave you a chance when I read all there is to offer at http://begthequestion.info. Unfortunately, I find it utterly without merit; pedantry at its absolute worst. As I said, "begs the question" syntactically conveys its intended meaning in the colloquial context.

    Moreover, the objection that "dilutes" or replaces its original meaning (as a translation from the latin) is frivolous, as the contexts are so immediately distinct that there is never apt to be any confusion.

    That some might be unaware of the logical connotations is simply a product of their being untrained in rhetoric (something I am not), and would equally apply to any other named fallacy. It's not a product of "misuse" of the term "begs the question" or confusion resulting therefrom.

    In any case you've failed to persuade me as to the merits of your position and so this discussion is worthless from either perspective.
    Dam this group of English Professors is way to cerebral for me.......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •