- 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?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News