- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SWAT Team blames 1 year old for being in room, getting disfigured by flashbang
Posted on 5/26/15 at 12:57 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 5/26/15 at 12:57 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
When you can read the document in question for yourself, yeah, it does.
I have and all it tells me is that this author doesn't understand how our legal system works. You have to plead every affirmative defense or lose them. Regardless of how you feel about this specific defense (personally I think it's BS) the lawyers here are just doing their job.
This post was edited on 5/26/15 at 12:59 pm
0
Posted on 5/26/15 at 12:58 pm to Salviati
quote:
To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, plaintiffs'injuries and damages, if any, were caused by the deliberate, criminal conduct of plaintiffs, and such criminal conduct supersedes any and all negligence or liability,if any, on the part of these defendants.
In short, the plaintiffs other than the baby were engaged in criminal conduct, and that criminal conduct acts as a superseding cause of the damages. In part and in short, the cops would not have been there if not for the criminal conduct of the other plaintiffs who were present at the time of the raid.
The individual allegedly engaging in criminal conduct was not there, had not been there for quite some time, and perhaps had never lived there at all. The defense is claiming that these people are criminals with no proof whatsoever except that they had the misfortune to be in the house when the cops kicked down the door with no warning.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:00 pm to Jim Rockford
Standard operating procedure. Plaintiff counsel should move that all such responses be stricken. Affirmative defenses must be proven.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:01 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
What if the family demanded $100,000,000 during presuit? The attorneys are retained by the insurance company to protect the monetary interests of the governmental entity.
I get why they did it. I realize this is about money. I was speaking about what should be done. I get that some people go overboard in damages. However the other side of me thinks no amount of money could justify disfiguring an infant.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:01 pm to Dorothy
Drug agent - quit
Drug task force - disbanded
Judge who signed warrant - retired
Perp who they wanted - didn't even live there
Cop who blindly threw a flash bang at a baby, almost killing it - still on the force
This is pretty ridiculous also. I wish I could have that privilege
SWAT team no-knock warrants with zero surveillance for a misdemeanor are such a great idea
Drug task force - disbanded
Judge who signed warrant - retired
Perp who they wanted - didn't even live there
Cop who blindly threw a flash bang at a baby, almost killing it - still on the force
This is pretty ridiculous also. I wish I could have that privilege
quote:
Under the state's law, the county government has sovereign immunity from negligence claims against it, and thus the payment would be an illegal "gratuity" to the family.
SWAT team no-knock warrants with zero surveillance for a misdemeanor are such a great idea
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:02 pm to NYNolaguy1
Shoot the fricking SWAT team already.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:07 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
How about not defend the department? You don't have to fight every lawsuit. Give the plaintiffs what they want and forget about it. Fighting it leads to BS like this and super bad press.
If it were up to me I would fire and charge all involved in this monstrosity of a frick up, from the magistrate that signed off on this on down.
Please, please, please, please, please go to law school and become a defense lawyer. You would totally get the best Christmas presents every year.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:07 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I was speaking about what should be done. I get that some people go overboard in damages. However the other side of me thinks no amount of money could justify disfiguring an infant.
Making an emotional argument for what "should" be done sounds like a great precedent to set.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:09 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
The individual allegedly engaging in criminal conduct was not there, had not been there for quite some time, and perhaps had never lived there at all. The defense is claiming that these people are criminals with no proof whatsoever except that they had the misfortune to be in the house when the cops kicked down the door with no warning.
you have to imagine the system. i'll try to illustrate
let's say you get served with a lawsuit tomorrow. it alleges all sorts of nasty shite against you and requests a trial by jury (which means it's over $50k). you have 15 days to respond to this lawsuit with an answer or else every allegation is true as far as the suit is concerned.
you cannot ask any questions. you cannot engage in discovery to find out anything about this claim before that time runs out. all you have to go on is the words on the complaint you were served with. are you going to allow any of these allegations to be admitted as being true? of course not
now, there are things called affirmative defenses. as i said earlier. these are defenses where you are saying "ok even if you prove all these FACTS right, you still lose because the law says you don't get to recover due to x". one such defense is that a third party (ie, not in the suit) is the real tortfeasor. another is that the person who is doing the suing was really negligent. if you don't say it now, you forever hold your peace and that defense is gone. even if you find out that he was 100% at fault for the incident, you can't use that as a defense anymore.
remember, the system is set up to protect you for when you get served with a possibly fraudulent lawsuit. you are given all of these avenues to defend your suit but no time to investigate them prior to answering. therefore, you throw the kitchen sink in your answer so that you don't waive any of them.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:10 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Making an emotional argument for what "should" be done sounds like a great precedent to set.
Making the case for disfiguring little kids is an equally good precedent.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:10 pm to Salviati
quote:
Second, you assume that the targeting was intentional rather than inadvertent. Perhaps, we should let the facts play out?
i'll agree the act was probably unintentional as I doubt the cop wanted to hurt the child, but when the facts play out, we will still find that the whole operation was a pretty big frick up- the kid's injuries being the worst, most sensational aspect of this raid. No knock raids have no place in this scenario, IMO. Save them for terrorists or other more severe cases. Not TPOS drug dealers.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
frick it, let's just open up the checkbook then. One hurt child is a blank check apparently.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Making the case for disfiguring little kids is an equally good precedent.
that kind of response does nothing to further the discussion, at least on a rational level
who is legitimately defending a kid being disfigured?
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:12 pm to Salviati
quote:
It is helpful to read the actual Answer rather than read some moron's misinterpretation of it.
Yeah, looks like a normal answer to a petition, prepared by any defense lawyer.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:14 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
One hurt child is a blank check apparently
Exactly how much money do you think is worth disfiguring and maiming little children?
You're coming across as if the SWAT team was justified here.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:16 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
You're coming across as if the SWAT team was justified here.
riiiiiight. Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:18 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Then what's your point? Unless this is one of your SOP arguing for the sake of arguing string of posts, in which case, troll away.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:19 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:First, this is the pleadings stage, not trial. Proof is not required at this point. Let's at least go through discovery before we start requiring proof.
The defense is claiming that these people are criminals with no proof whatsoever except that they had the misfortune to be in the house when the cops kicked down the door with no warning.
Second, this action is in federal court, not state court, so notice pleading is all that is required, not fact pleading. The plaintiff's are given notice that the defendants intend to raise the defense of "superseding negligence or cause" on the part of at least some of the plaintiffs.
quote:You assume this to be true, but I did not find any admission of those facts in the Answer.
The individual allegedly engaging in criminal conduct was not there, had not been there for quite some time, and perhaps had never lived there at all.
In any event, if I'm the attorney representing the defendants, I'm going to raise the defense of "superseding cause or negligence" in the Answer. If facts subsequently show that it has no basis, I withdraw the defense or it's stricken.
If I don't raise the defense, but subsequent facts show the defense was viable, I committed malpractice.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you cannot ask any questions. you cannot engage in discovery to find out anything about this claim before that time runs out. all you have to go on is the words on the complaint you were served with. are you going to allow any of these allegations to be admitted as being true? of course not
But in reality you do know the answers. In a case like this you aren't just hearing about it when the adjuster forwards it to you. I understand it's "how it works" but it is still gross.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:20 pm to Mo Jeaux
Can you not read? If you can't see what I've said based on my words, that's on you.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News