kurtmax_0
Regular Member
imported post
forever_frost wrote:
Not really. Some people can take it.
forever_frost wrote:
Not really. Some people can take it.
-
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.
-
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.
Bystander saves cop with gunfire - gets sued.
- Thread starter deanf
- Start date
imported post
I wish Mr. Stephens the best and I hope he is counter suing the woman for legal fees.
IMHO the only mistake Perry made was not taking the head shot sooner, where I come from it's 2 COM and 1 head shot, repeat as necessary!
OZ
I wish Mr. Stephens the best and I hope he is counter suing the woman for legal fees.
IMHO the only mistake Perry made was not taking the head shot sooner, where I come from it's 2 COM and 1 head shot, repeat as necessary!
OZ
SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
ijusam
Regular Member
imported post
In delaware it wouldn't be an issue:
§ 1241. Refusing to aid a police officer; class B misdemeanor.
A person is guilty of refusing to aid a police officer when, upon command by a police officer identifiable or identified by the officer as such, the person unreasonably fails or refuses to aid the police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the commission by another person of any offense.
Refusing to aid a police officer is a class B misdemeanor. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 1241; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 1242. Limitation of civil liability for aiding a police officer.
(a) A person who complies with § 1241 of this title by aiding a police officer, upon command, to affect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense, shall not be held liable to any person for any damages resulting therefrom; provided, that the person employs means which would have been employed by a reasonable person under the circumstances known to the person at the time.
In delaware it wouldn't be an issue:
§ 1241. Refusing to aid a police officer; class B misdemeanor.
A person is guilty of refusing to aid a police officer when, upon command by a police officer identifiable or identified by the officer as such, the person unreasonably fails or refuses to aid the police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the commission by another person of any offense.
Refusing to aid a police officer is a class B misdemeanor. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 1241; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 1242. Limitation of civil liability for aiding a police officer.
(a) A person who complies with § 1241 of this title by aiding a police officer, upon command, to affect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense, shall not be held liable to any person for any damages resulting therefrom; provided, that the person employs means which would have been employed by a reasonable person under the circumstances known to the person at the time.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
I seriouslt doubt with that being FACT,any jury or judge will grant the "Loss of Consortium". When it's time in court comes.
compmanio365 wrote:
I seriouslt doubt with that being FACT,any jury or judge will grant the "Loss of Consortium". When it's time in court comes.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
ijusam wrote:
ijusam wrote:
The problem is convincing a jury that they would have done the same thing which is what a jury would consider to be reasonable circumstances. The whole problem is who gets to decide if what you did was the right thing.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
ijusam wrote:
Yea I wouldn't be so confident here either. La Law says that what the shooter did was indeed JUSTIFIED.
It's the Civil Suit, that stands now. "Loss of Consortium"
The Shooting result was this;
The actions of both Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens were found to have fallen in the parameters of the justifiable homicide statutes under Louisiana law. No charges were filed against either of them.
ijusam wrote:
Yea I wouldn't be so confident here either. La Law says that what the shooter did was indeed JUSTIFIED.
It's the Civil Suit, that stands now. "Loss of Consortium"
The Shooting result was this;
The actions of both Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens were found to have fallen in the parameters of the justifiable homicide statutes under Louisiana law. No charges were filed against either of them.
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
The bad guy's mother should be sueing the person responsible for the bad guy's death... wait for it... the bad guy. If he had chosen to respond to the police peacefully, he'd still be alive.
The fault for the entire incident lies at the feet of the bad guy. His reactions are what determined his demise. Not the guy who reluctantly shot him; not the police officer he was savagely beating. He chose to act contrary to what civilized society expects and outside of the law. He paid the price for that.
/pounds gavel
/gets down from the bench
The bad guy's mother should be sueing the person responsible for the bad guy's death... wait for it... the bad guy. If he had chosen to respond to the police peacefully, he'd still be alive.
The fault for the entire incident lies at the feet of the bad guy. His reactions are what determined his demise. Not the guy who reluctantly shot him; not the police officer he was savagely beating. He chose to act contrary to what civilized society expects and outside of the law. He paid the price for that.
/pounds gavel
/gets down from the bench
Prophet
Regular Member
imported post
Dustin wrote:
The actions of both Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens were found to have fallen in the parameters of the justifiable homicide statutes under Louisiana law. No charges were filed against either of them.
[/quote]
Yeah...and OJ was found not guilty for killing his wife but still got sued and lost for killing her. Justice system is jacked up sometime.
Dustin wrote:
The actions of both Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens were found to have fallen in the parameters of the justifiable homicide statutes under Louisiana law. No charges were filed against either of them.
[/quote]
Yeah...and OJ was found not guilty for killing his wife but still got sued and lost for killing her. Justice system is jacked up sometime.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
SFCRetired wrote:
They have the same problem with LE too.
SFCRetired wrote:
They have the same problem with LE too.
XD-GEM
Campaign Veteran
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
Louisiana has passed a civil immunity law since the time of this shooting several years ago, and this lawsuit was a major factor in getting it passed. However, such a law is not retroactive, so he still must fight it out in the courts, even though it's BS and would probably not go against him. He still has to pay attorney and court costs.
shad0wfax
Regular Member
imported post
Stephens should be up for a Nobel Peace Prize, not stuck in a civil suit withthe greedy bitch unwed mother of the dead perp's child.
If she wins her suit, maybe Perry's department will foot the bill. (Wishful thinking, I know...)
Stephens should be up for a Nobel Peace Prize, not stuck in a civil suit withthe greedy bitch unwed mother of the dead perp's child.
If she wins her suit, maybe Perry's department will foot the bill. (Wishful thinking, I know...)
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
That's why I'm moving to MO. I can't believe there is a lawyer out there repulsive enough too sue Mr Stephens now that Johnny Cochoran is in hell.
I think Temple's "baby's momma" should bebeaten right along with that scumbag lawyer.
deepdiver wrote:
That's why I'm moving to MO. I can't believe there is a lawyer out there repulsive enough too sue Mr Stephens now that Johnny Cochoran is in hell.
I think Temple's "baby's momma" should bebeaten right along with that scumbag lawyer.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
PrayingForWar wrote:
PrayingForWar wrote:
You must not know many lawyers.:banghead:
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
I asked a "friend" of mine (really hard to say that) who is a lawyer if a man came into your office and said that he had just killed his wife in cold blood but didn't think the police could prove it and wanted you to get him off would you do it? My friend said first thing would be to get a retainer fee then they could discuss his options. :shock:
Hawkflyer wrote:
+1 on not knowing many lawyers. :cuss:
I asked a "friend" of mine (really hard to say that) who is a lawyer if a man came into your office and said that he had just killed his wife in cold blood but didn't think the police could prove it and wanted you to get him off would you do it? My friend said first thing would be to get a retainer fee then they could discuss his options. :shock:
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
I am very surprised that nobody has picked up on this part yet... This is the one part of Stephens actions that I have a problem with...
“Not heeding my commands to stop, I fired my pistol rapidly several times…The driver didn’t appear phased (sic) by the shots and continued beating the officer. I quickly gave another command for the driver to ‘Get off.’”
You should NEVER shoot without a target! I understand the 'reluctance' to shoot someone, but it is also a cardinal rule to NOT shoot 'warning' shots!
I commend him for his actions in coming to the aid of the officer and ultimately probably saving his life and do sincerely wish him the best in this suit (and hope he gets a BIG counter claim awarded); and I hope that all of us would have the same courage and resolve should we ever face a similar situation (as well as hoping that none of us ever do)
Just a little curious about where the bullets from 'several rapidly fired shots' ended up...
I am very surprised that nobody has picked up on this part yet... This is the one part of Stephens actions that I have a problem with...
“Not heeding my commands to stop, I fired my pistol rapidly several times…The driver didn’t appear phased (sic) by the shots and continued beating the officer. I quickly gave another command for the driver to ‘Get off.’”
You should NEVER shoot without a target! I understand the 'reluctance' to shoot someone, but it is also a cardinal rule to NOT shoot 'warning' shots!
I commend him for his actions in coming to the aid of the officer and ultimately probably saving his life and do sincerely wish him the best in this suit (and hope he gets a BIG counter claim awarded); and I hope that all of us would have the same courage and resolve should we ever face a similar situation (as well as hoping that none of us ever do)
Just a little curious about where the bullets from 'several rapidly fired shots' ended up...
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
The way I read it those first few shots were fired INTO the bad guy.
The way I read it those first few shots were fired INTO the bad guy.
XD-GEM
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Gator5713 wrote:
Gator5713 wrote:
In the perp. They weren't warning shots.
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
Nope, those were 2 paragraphs later and were carefully aimed...