quote:

Originally posted by Gear.Up:

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:

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

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
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?

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
In Florida if it is ruled a good shooting you are immune from civil charges.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
Doesn't this fall under the Good Samaritan law?

quote:

563.051. Private person's use of force in making an arrest. — 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he or she reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he or she knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.

  2. A private person acting on his or her own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force to arrest or prevent the escape of a person whom such private person reasonably believes has committed an offense, and who in fact has committed such offense, when the private person's actions are immediately necessary to arrest the offender or prevent his or her escape from custody.

  3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only:

  (1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

  (2) When he or she reasonably believes deadly force is authorized under the circumstances and he or she is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or

  (3) When he or she reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to arrest a person who at that time and in his or her presence:

  (a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or

  (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.

  4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

quote:

563.074. Justification as an absolute defense, when. — 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

  2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dusty78:

Hopefully Indiana has loser pays rules.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

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

implied consent?

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.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
In Florida if it is ruled a good shooting you are immune from civil charges.

Arizona too!

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.