• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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?section=news/local&id=9207650
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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"
....
 

normuser

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
22
Location
texas
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?)..
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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. :banghead:
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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. :banghead:


Often times it is just for record keeping......it's pretty much how I view it.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
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.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
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...
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.

:rolleyes:

"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.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
:rolleyes:

"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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
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:
Top