- 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
Poliboard lawyers: Steinle related?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:44 pm
Can the family sue the city and it’s officals for damages? By disregarding federal law (sanctuary city), the city of SF created the circumstances that lead to Kate’s death, yes?
I’m asking out of ignorance on the subject and am not trolling to fire up people about the Kate Steinle case.
I’m asking out of ignorance on the subject and am not trolling to fire up people about the Kate Steinle case.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:49 pm to CoachChappy
Yes. CA likely has a state tort claims act that provides for liability against a municipality based on gross negligence. They also will likely file a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for a violation of their daughter's civil rights. There are probably other causes of action as well, but the two above would be the most relevant.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:50 pm to CoachChappy
Very highly unlikely.
See: LINK
ETA after above post: I also find it highly unlikely that any court would consider their actions gross negligence.
ETA2: I would like to hear an explanation of this, as I can't conceive of a non spurious argument for how the state violated her civil rights: "They also will likely file a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for a violation of their daughter's civil rights."
See: LINK
ETA after above post: I also find it highly unlikely that any court would consider their actions gross negligence.
ETA2: I would like to hear an explanation of this, as I can't conceive of a non spurious argument for how the state violated her civil rights: "They also will likely file a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for a violation of their daughter's civil rights."
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:50 pm to CoachChappy
Might be hard to prove "but for" cause.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:52 pm to CoachChappy
Any legal victory is possible. But in light of the fact that Zarate had no record of violence AND the shooting was ruled an accident, imo it is a huge stretch to say that the City of SF should have known that an individual with no history of violence would accidentally shoot someone and is thus responsible for the accidental shooting death.
You could argue that HAD they turned over Zarate to ICE Zarate would not have accidentally shot someone in SF. But that assumes that Zarate would not have made it back into the country after being deported and the fact is he'd already accomplished that numerous times.
Is a police officer who fails to arrest someone on a marijuana possession and only hits them with a lesser charge responsible for a murder the individual commits the next day and might not have committed had the cop arrested the individual for possession of weed?
You could argue that HAD they turned over Zarate to ICE Zarate would not have accidentally shot someone in SF. But that assumes that Zarate would not have made it back into the country after being deported and the fact is he'd already accomplished that numerous times.
Is a police officer who fails to arrest someone on a marijuana possession and only hits them with a lesser charge responsible for a murder the individual commits the next day and might not have committed had the cop arrested the individual for possession of weed?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:52 pm to SCLibertarian
They should sue and take the city of San Francisco to the cleaners for millions of dollars. They should then direct the proceeds for a down payment to BUILD THE WALL. San Francisco making payments for the wall... Liberal heads would explode like never seen before.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:53 pm to SCLibertarian
The high school football player that was killed by illegals in California family filed a suit against the city and it got thrown out. Can't remember the kids name but his killers were found guilty
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:55 pm to MajorTaylor
quote:
Is a police officer who fails to arrest someone on a marijuana possession and only hits them with a lesser charge responsible for a murder the individual commits the next day and might not have committed had the cop arrested the individual for possession of weed?
Considering the holding in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, I can't conceive of how any of this would play out the way OP would like.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:00 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Considering the holding in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, I can't conceive of how any of this would play out the way OP would like.
I’m sure there is a ton of precedent of California courts favoring lawlessness and giving them the chance to write the law. In this case, the killer admitted he went to SF because it was a sanctuary city.
Can the family file the suit outside of California or maybe in a federal court? Again, I’m woefully ignorant here. However, as a casual observer, if the city was not a sanctuary city, the killer is not even there in the first place.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:09 pm to CoachChappy
And in theory, a state wouldn't have drunk driving deaths if it outlawed alcohol. The reality, for better or worse, is that suing a state government is really, really hard
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:12 pm to Joshjrn
I think a Monell claim against the City of San Francisco, based on the Single Decision Policy doctrine, could withstand summary judgment in Federal Court.
The Single Decision Policy doctrine allows municipal liability when "when a deliberate choice is made through various alternatives by an official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question."
Again, California jurisprudence is not South Carolina's, but I'd take her family's case if I practiced in CA and her family approached me.
The Single Decision Policy doctrine allows municipal liability when "when a deliberate choice is made through various alternatives by an official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question."
Again, California jurisprudence is not South Carolina's, but I'd take her family's case if I practiced in CA and her family approached me.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:16 pm to SCLibertarian
As a full disclaimer, I'm a criminal defense attorney licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana, so I'm by no means an expert when it comes to the OP's question. With that said, what little I remember on the subject tells me that it would be one hell of a longshot to get past a MSJ, much less reach any kind of jury award.
But, I very well could be wrong
But, I very well could be wrong
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:18 pm to Joshjrn
I read the case you cited and I'm wrong it seems. Not a fan of that ruling but it makes sense to an extent. It seems that it caused a ruckus with the U.N. and NOW.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:22 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
And in theory, a state wouldn't have drunk driving deaths if it outlawed alcohol
Apples and oranges.
In this case, the state is violating/disregarding a federal law.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:23 pm to rhinolsu
"the __________'s heads will explode!!" is an expression that needs retiring.
But by all means do continue to use it should you desire to sound like an idiotic person.
But by all means do continue to use it should you desire to sound like an idiotic person.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:24 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
Apples and oranges.
In this case, the state is violating/disregarding a federal law.
Fine, then someone in Colorado smoked themselves silly and blew through a red light. You'd end up with the same dismissal.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:26 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
In this case, the state is violating/disregarding a federal law.
Interesting how the whole "states rights" is readily and so easily abandoned here.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:42 pm to MajorTaylor
quote:
Interesting how the whole "states rights" is readily and so easily abandoned here.
Nice try, but enforcing our borders and the laws pertaining to it is a function of the federal gov’t.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 7:43 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Fine, then someone in Colorado smoked themselves silly and blew through a red light. You'd end up with the same dismissal.
I would argue that you have the same reason to sue.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 8:12 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
I would argue that you have the same reason to sue.
I agree with you that you'd have the same reason; it's simply my opinion that reason isn't good enough, from a legal perspective
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News