Babies, Weapons and Lawsuits -- Part One
---
Remember the Los Angeles toddler who was held captive and used, fatally, as a human shield by her father while he shot at police no less than four separate times? The chain of my previous posts on the incident is here.
The family of the toddler are now, perhaps unsurprisingly, preparing to sue the LAPD:
Negligence is the breaching of a duty of care owed to another. Another common definition is "the doing of something a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something a reasonably prudent person would do, under the same or similar circumstances."
In this instance, as I explained in my previous posts, when one speaks of a "reasonably prudent person," one must of course be limited to a reasonably prudent police officer facing live armed combat. How is a lay jury supposed to determine what is reasonable when you're being shot at? It is folly to suppose that a lay civilian jury is competent to pass judgment on police officers in the context of armed combat.
Of course, the only standard of reasonableness in this circumstance is: "if you're being shot at, then it is reasonable to shoot back." Unless experts, particularly as part of an internal investigation, can objectively demonstrate otherwise, there simply cannot be an actionable claim in a fact pattern like this.
We rarely if ever second-guess our soldiers in matters of live armed combat. Law enforcement officers, in live armed combat, deserve the same presumptions and insulations from liability. If they're shooting at you, then it is per se reasonable to shoot back. No civilian has the right to say otherwise.
The father proximately caused the death of his daughter, not the police, and the police must not be held liable.
Overlawyered has more background on the litigation.
The family of the toddler are now, perhaps unsurprisingly, preparing to sue the LAPD:
The claims, which were filed late Monday and accuse police of negligence, are a precursor to a civil lawsuit.This is, of course, utter nonsense.
...
Attorney Leo Carrillo, who is representing Suzie Pena's family, accused police on Monday of not giving negotiators enough time to try to talk the father into surrendering. He also accused officers of recklessly using a flash-bang grenade.
Negligence is the breaching of a duty of care owed to another. Another common definition is "the doing of something a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something a reasonably prudent person would do, under the same or similar circumstances."
In this instance, as I explained in my previous posts, when one speaks of a "reasonably prudent person," one must of course be limited to a reasonably prudent police officer facing live armed combat. How is a lay jury supposed to determine what is reasonable when you're being shot at? It is folly to suppose that a lay civilian jury is competent to pass judgment on police officers in the context of armed combat.
Of course, the only standard of reasonableness in this circumstance is: "if you're being shot at, then it is reasonable to shoot back." Unless experts, particularly as part of an internal investigation, can objectively demonstrate otherwise, there simply cannot be an actionable claim in a fact pattern like this.
We rarely if ever second-guess our soldiers in matters of live armed combat. Law enforcement officers, in live armed combat, deserve the same presumptions and insulations from liability. If they're shooting at you, then it is per se reasonable to shoot back. No civilian has the right to say otherwise.
The father proximately caused the death of his daughter, not the police, and the police must not be held liable.
Overlawyered has more background on the litigation.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Babies, Weapons and Lawsuits -- Part One
- LAPD Toddler Shooting: "More Patience"?!?
- How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?
- On Second-Guessing Police Officers in Combat
Posted by KipEsquire on
28 September 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
