saw this on another forum and thought it was worth sharing

Hero Who Shot Man Trying To Kill Cop Gets Sued By Criminal's Family

https://www.themaven.net/bluel...ymM1Llqu8u1w/?full=1


A heroic woman who shot a man attacking a police officer is getting sued.

Ohio County, IN – A heroic woman who came to the aid of a police officer under attack has been hit with a lawsuit.

Kystie Jaehnen was hailed as a hero after she saved the life of an Indiana conservation officer who had been overtaken by a drug-fueled assailant. But now she has become the focus of a wrongful death lawsuit, according to an Aurora Police Department (APD) sergeant familiar with the case.

The incident occurred on Feb. 20, 2017, when a citizen contacted Ohio County 911 at 12:19 p.m. to report that a disheveled man had parked his pickup partially into her driveway, and was blocking a highway lane, the Journal Press reported.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Conservation Officer Michael Powell, who had had just finished his shift at noon, was traveling in his marked patrol unit, and heard the call being dispatched.

He responded to the scene, where he encountered 25-year-old Justin Holland rummaging through items in his truck.

Officer Powell asked Holland to come to the back of the pickup, and noticed that Holland was acting erratically, and appeared to be impaired.

Toxicology results later found that Holland had methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, marijuana, dextromethorphan, and methadone in his system at the time of the encounter.

Due to Holland’s behavior, Officer Powell attempted to handcuff him for officer and public safety, at which point the irate man began to resist.

In the struggle that ensued, Holland began to overtake the officer with his considerable strength and size.

“At some point, the officer began to lose that altercation with that person,” Indiana State Police Sergeant Stephen Wheeles told WLWT.

“Eventually, [Officer] Powell was on all fours as Holland was on top of him,” Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens told the Journal Press.

Holland then reached for the officer’s duty weapon. Officer Powell later said that he felt Holland applying pressure on his retention holster, the Journal Press reported.

As the situation grew increasingly dire, Jaehnen, a concerned female neighbor, raced to the officer’s aid.

“It was at that time that a female... nearby saw what was taking place, and decided that she needed to take action to come to the assistance of that officer,” Sgt. Wheeles told WLWT.

"The female fired one shot from a personally owned firearm at Holland, striking him in the torso," police said, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Jaehnen and her mother, who had originally placed the 911 call, then began performing CPR on the wounded attacker, APD Sergeant William Halbig told Blue Lives Matter.

Holland was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead, WLWT reported.

Officer Powell was also transported for treatment of undisclosed, non-life threatening injuries.

Following Holland’s death, his family acknowledged that he had been “struggling with demons,” WLWT reported.

Despite the fact that Officer Powell had driven a marked patrol unit to the scene, Holland’s family said they questioned whether or not he realized he was fighting with a law enforcement officer.

Holland was facing charges of fraud of a financial institution, fraud, theft, and forgery at the time of altercation, and had previously been arrested for one count of battery resulting in bodily injury.

The assault charge was ultimately dismissed, WLWT reported.

In May, 2017, Deddens announced that Jaehnen would not face any criminal charges for coming to the assistance of an officer in need, WCPO reported. She further explained that Jaehnen had acted in defense of Officer Powell.

Despite the circumstances of the incident, Holland’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jaehnen, Officer Powell, and the DNR on Feb. 15.

“It is tragic how one person’s irrational and unlawful actions can destroy the peaceful lives of others,” Sgt. Halbig, who is also the President of the Laughery Valley Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), said on a fundraising page he has initiated to help Jaehnen with legal expenses.

“The FOP is an organization that supports solid laws and is essentially all about the fellowship of law enforcement officers, but we also have an obligation to recognize Kystie’s heroic and selfless actions while helping out one of our own,” he told Blue Lives Matter.

Although Officer Powell and the DNR have also been named in the suit, they have access to aid and defense teams that Jaehnen does not.

“Kystie is courageous, and her actions saved a life, and she should be commended, but instead she is being sued,” Sgt. Halbig noted on the fundraising page. “Attorney fees are an expense well beyond Kystie’s income and this will not be a quick process. The legal fees and emotional stress may drain every resource she has.”

He argued that the outcome of Jaehnen’s legal battle signifies “more than the right or wrong of one party suing another.”

“The case is about a person having the basic God-given right and the 2nd Amendment right to defend both yourself and others and without the fear of civil retribution,” Sgt. Halbig concluded.

As of Monday afternoon, the fundraising campaign had received nearly $10,700 in donations. In the event donations exceed the amount needed for Jaehnen’s legal expenses, the balance will be donated to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, and the Police Benevolent Fund, according to the website.

“She needs some support,” Sgt. Halbig told Blue Lives Matter. “If they win, it will be an absolute shame.”

Click HERE to see the GoFundMe page.

Even if you cannot donate yourself, please help share this story on social media so we can get this hero some help.

Link to the go fund me


https://www.gofundme.com/kystie039s-best-defense

I don't see them winning.

No Hillbilly Lottery for you!

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
I don't see them winning.

No Hillbilly Lottery for you!

I don’t either but she will still have to pay a lawyer to get to that point

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
I don't see them winning.

No Hillbilly Lottery for you!

I don’t either but she will still have to pay a lawyer to get to that point

Hopefully Indiana has loser pays rules.

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
I don't see them winning.

No Hillbilly Lottery for you!

I don’t either but she will still have to pay a lawyer to get to that point

Hopefully Indiana has loser pays rules.

Even if so, I suspect that the dearly departed's family will turn out to have very little to pay with.

quote:

Even if so, I suspect that the dearly departed's family will turn out to have very little to pay with.

This is where I'm OK with a little legal reform.

If the family has little or nothing I'm assuming the attorney has taken the case on a contingency basis. The attorney only collects if they win, so he's assuming some risks.

Part of that risk should be putting the attorney on the hook should they loose. Don't want to accept that risk? Then don't take clients on contingency, or make sure your clients will put up the resources in the event you loose.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Even if so, I suspect that the dearly departed's family will turn out to have very little to pay with.

This is where I'm OK with a little legal reform.

If the family has little or nothing I'm assuming the attorney has taken the case on a contingency basis. The attorney only collects if they win, so he's assuming some risks.

Part of that risk should be putting the attorney on the hook should they loose. Don't want to accept that risk? Then don't take clients on contingency, or make sure your clients will put up the resources in the event you loose.

Sidenote. Years ago my uncle was hit with a lawsuit, total nonsense, but filed for harassment and vengance. At the end the judge ruled for my uncle, then told the plaintiff atty something like "this is a ridiculous case, you knew it all along, you will never set foot in my courtroom again".

But I will have to get on go-fund-me.

I would have to think that some pro-2nd amendment group would take her case pro-bono.

By the way, i would've done the exact same thing she did.

That's some BS. Hopefully the judge dismisses the case quickly.


In NC, if one comes to assist an officer, if assistance is requested ("Help!"), the person is afforded all the powers and protections of the same law enforcement officer.

quote:

Assistance upon Request; Authority. – Private persons may assist law-enforcement
officers in effecting arrests and preventing escapes from custody when requested to do so by the
officer. When so requested, a private person has the same authority to effect an arrest or prevent
escape from custody as the officer making the request. He does not incur civil or criminal
liability for an invalid arrest unless he knows the arrest to be invalid.
...
Benefits to Private Persons. – A private person assisting a law-enforcement officer
pursuant to subsection (a) is:
(1) Repealed by Session Laws 1989, c. 290, s. 1.
(2) Entitled to the same benefits as a "law-enforcement officer" as that term is
defined in G.S. 143-166.2(d) (Law-Enforcement Officers', Firemen's and
Rescue Squad Workers' Death Benefit Act); and
(3) To be treated as an employee of the employer of the law-enforcement officer
within the meaning of G.S. 97-2(2) (Workers' Compensation Act).

I've never personally known the law to be used, however I've always thought it was a kick ass law!

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

I've never personally known the law to be used, however I've always thought it was a kick ass law!

Yeah, that is pretty sweet.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
That's some BS. Hopefully the judge dismisses the case quickly.


In NC, if one comes to assist an officer, if assistance is requested ("Help!"), the person is afforded all the powers and protections of the same law enforcement officer.

quote:

Assistance upon Request; Authority. – Private persons may assist law-enforcement
officers in effecting arrests and preventing escapes from custody when requested to do so by the
officer. When so requested, a private person has the same authority to effect an arrest or prevent
escape from custody as the officer making the request. He does not incur civil or criminal
liability for an invalid arrest unless he knows the arrest to be invalid.
...
Benefits to Private Persons. – A private person assisting a law-enforcement officer
pursuant to subsection (a) is:
(1) Repealed by Session Laws 1989, c. 290, s. 1.
(2) Entitled to the same benefits as a "law-enforcement officer" as that term is
defined in G.S. 143-166.2(d) (Law-Enforcement Officers', Firemen's and
Rescue Squad Workers' Death Benefit Act); and
(3) To be treated as an employee of the employer of the law-enforcement officer
within the meaning of G.S. 97-2(2) (Workers' Compensation Act).

I've never personally known the law to be used, however I've always thought it was a kick ass law!

We need this law in Idaho.

I'll be talking with my local state rep and senator about it.

Chongo,

I did not know that law existed but it makes me feel better as a NC resident. Thanks for posting.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
That's some BS. Hopefully the judge dismisses the case quickly.


In NC, if one comes to assist an officer, if assistance is requested ("Help!"), the person is afforded all the powers and protections of the same law enforcement officer.

quote:

Assistance upon Request; Authority. – Private persons may assist law-enforcement
officers in effecting arrests and preventing escapes from custody when requested to do so by the
officer. When so requested, a private person has the same authority to effect an arrest or prevent
escape from custody as the officer making the request. He does not incur civil or criminal
liability for an invalid arrest unless he knows the arrest to be invalid.
...
Benefits to Private Persons. – A private person assisting a law-enforcement officer
pursuant to subsection (a) is:
(1) Repealed by Session Laws 1989, c. 290, s. 1.
(2) Entitled to the same benefits as a "law-enforcement officer" as that term is
defined in G.S. 143-166.2(d) (Law-Enforcement Officers', Firemen's and
Rescue Squad Workers' Death Benefit Act); and
(3) To be treated as an employee of the employer of the law-enforcement officer
within the meaning of G.S. 97-2(2) (Workers' Compensation Act).

I've never personally known the law to be used, however I've always thought it was a kick ass law!

What if the officer is incapacitated and can’t actually ask for help? I wonder is the law would still apply?

In Texas, if it's a "good" shooting, the shooter is immune from civil suits.

quote:

Chapter 83 of the same code states that a person who used force or deadly force against an individual that is justified under TPC Chapter 9 is immune from liability for personal injury or death of the individual against whom the force was used.[19] This does not relieve a person from liability for use of force or deadly force on someone against whom the force would not be justified, such as a bystander hit by an errant shot.

LINK

quote:

What if the officer is incapacitated and can’t actually ask for help?

I heard him / her ask for help. It was clear as could be!

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
I don't see them winning.

No Hillbilly Lottery for you!

That's an insult to hillbillies. These people are just plain mouth-breathing, window-licking, dirtbag, white trash.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
In Texas, if it's a "good" shooting, the shooter is immune from civil suits.

Michigan has similar statutes.

quote:

Michigan Compiled Laws (M.C.L.)

Act 236 of 1961. Revised Judicature Act of 1961.

Chapter 29. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SPECIFIC ACTIONS

600.2922b Use of deadly force or other than deadly force by individual in self-defense; immunity from civil liability.

An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:

(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.

(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual.

Ref: MI 600.2922b Use of deadly force or other than deadly force by individual in self-defense; immunity from civil liability

And...

quote:

Michigan Compiled Laws (M.C.L.)

Act 236 of 1961. Revised Judicature Act of 1961.

Chapter 29. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SPECIFIC ACTIONS

600.2922c Individual sued for using deadly force or force other than deadly force; award of attorney fees and costs; conditions.

The court shall award the payment of actual attorney fees and costs to an individual who is sued for civil damages for allegedly using deadly force or force other than deadly force against another individual if the court determines that the individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act and that the individual is immune from civil liability under section 2922b.

Ref: MI 600.2922c Individual sued for using deadly force or force other than deadly force; award of attorney fees and costs; conditions

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Even if so, I suspect that the dearly departed's family will turn out to have very little to pay with.

This is where I'm OK with a little legal reform.

If the family has little or nothing I'm assuming the attorney has taken the case on a contingency basis. The attorney only collects if they win, so he's assuming some risks.

Part of that risk should be putting the attorney on the hook should they loose. Don't want to accept that risk? Then don't take clients on contingency, or make sure your clients will put up the resources in the event you loose.

I agree whole-heartedly!

Get the NRA involved; they would have a field day with this and the media attention would be gold. As a bonus, it might throw some well deserved bright light on the piece of shit family suing for their piece of shit family member.

To have to incur a cost of $300,000 to defend yourself against crap like this is some sort of crime in itself.

You guys are cruel. He was a good man, he often went to Sunday school as a youth. He helped his aunt go shopping and carried in her groceries. If she needed medication in the middle of the night he answered his phone and would go to the all night pharmacy to retrieve it and take it to her. He was often seen helping his elderly grandmother across the road. So in this one incident he had his life taken by a bystander who wanted to show she could shoot if she wanted to. He was only wrestling with the officer to keep him from taking him to jail. He had no real intention of actually hurting the man, thinking he was only a conservation officer with a grudge against guys with pickup trucks.

The shooter cold have shot him in the hand or foot. No need to shoot him in a place that she knew or should have known could kill him. She had no "iron" in the fire. She acted for the fun of it.

Besides, the families lawsuit was only filed to get the state to acknowledge they were wrong and could have saved a life. Maybe all the family wants is a small settlement from the outrageous actions of a local woman who stuck her nose into something she had no business butting in.

Oh, and in his truck he had enrollment materials for the local seminary, hoping to achieve his life long goal of entering the ministrty. Also in his truck as notes on how he planned to cure cancer in his spare time.

There, have I missed anything?