Deputy files lawsuit against person who called 9 1 1

carolina guy said:

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??

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

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.

Click to expand...

()pen(arry said:

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.

Click to expand...

marshaul said:

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.

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

Dam this group of English Professors is way to cerebral for me.......

Click to expand...

SavageOne said:

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

Click to expand...

PALO said:

I'd love to hear Prof. Volokh's take (or somebody else over there) on this. I readily admit I don't know anywhere near enough civil law to know whether the claim is actionable, and I say that as somebody who HAS sued in civil court and won my case. It was a much more established theory.

He's saying she reported an incident to 911, knew of an environmental danger (a man who had been tripping for 2 days on bath salts and had exhibited violent behavior) at the scene, and did not report it to 911.

Does he have to prove she willfully decided NOT to report that info out of malice, etc. or merely that she was negligent or grossly negligent in not reporting it? Under what legal theory does she have a DUTY to report that? It's well established people can be criminally tried for reporting FALSE info on a 911 call. I would assume if somebody got hurt responding code to a incident, based on the caller's reporting of factors justifying a code response, and it turns out the caller made the incident up out of thin air or something, that one could sue for that. Since she could be criminally charged for that, it doesn't seem a stretch to imagine she could be sued as well if injuries resulted (or assume another person did not get timely police service because they were busy responding to a non-existent scene that some 911 caller made up. Iow. they were diverted based on the false call and the other victim suffered injuries because she did not get the service she would have gotten IF the cops weren't responding to the bogus higher priority call, would that victim have a claim?"

The only incident I can think of along these lines were where an officer sued a homeowner after responding to a burglar alarm, finding the front door open, he went in to check the house and fell 1 story through a hole in the floor that had been covered by a tarp. His theory was that they had a duty to mark it so people would know it's a danger, since they had a house alarm and knew cops would be responding to their house upon trips, and sometimes checking the interior if there was cause/forced entry etc. UNfortunately, I never found out the resolution of that case, but even so it seems way more solid than this case.

Any civil law legal expert/wonks who could discourse on this case would be cool.

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

I don't think he has a chance on winning this unless: He can prove she is an expert in Bath Salts and the affects of drugs on a person, if she isn't a Medical Doctor that is specialized in that field he cant prove she had any clue what might happen. Hell she held her own until she called 911 you would think a highly trained, armed (with multiple items) would be able to handle the situation.

He either wasn't trained properly on how to enter a 911 situation or he is incompetent IMHO.

Click to expand...