Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
City Denies Mans Claim After Police Shot at Him Mistaking Him for Christopher Dorner
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2240362" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>I've always felt that if QI wasn't so iron clad, there might be fewer of these types of incidents. Would it get more officers killed due to hesitation? Possibly. It's a very tough call.</p><p></p><p>I think that ultimately, it should be the agency/governing body that pays the claim or lawsuit. The entity that pays should however be allowed to recoup their damages from the responsible individual(s). That's how we work it on civil cases where I work. We go after the certificated & regulated party. It's up to them to recover their losses from the individual(s) or subcontractors that committed the regulatory violation. </p><p></p><p>Let's face it, there's no way the two women in the truck would ever actually recover $2M from the officers who did it, regardless of the judgement. The agency should be responsible to make them whole and then get what they reasonably can from the officers. Yeah, that sucks for the taxpayers who didn't ask for the burden, but neither does the aggrieved party who files the claim. I think their individual damages outweigh the damage to the collective tax base. JMO, YMMV</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2240362, member: 1132"] I've always felt that if QI wasn't so iron clad, there might be fewer of these types of incidents. Would it get more officers killed due to hesitation? Possibly. It's a very tough call. I think that ultimately, it should be the agency/governing body that pays the claim or lawsuit. The entity that pays should however be allowed to recoup their damages from the responsible individual(s). That's how we work it on civil cases where I work. We go after the certificated & regulated party. It's up to them to recover their losses from the individual(s) or subcontractors that committed the regulatory violation. Let's face it, there's no way the two women in the truck would ever actually recover $2M from the officers who did it, regardless of the judgement. The agency should be responsible to make them whole and then get what they reasonably can from the officers. Yeah, that sucks for the taxpayers who didn't ask for the burden, but neither does the aggrieved party who files the claim. I think their individual damages outweigh the damage to the collective tax base. JMO, YMMV [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
City Denies Mans Claim After Police Shot at Him Mistaking Him for Christopher Dorner
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom