off duty officer shoots at fleeing car

[T.Lex]

The world is gray because people allow it to be.

My friend, that is simply wrong. That is a variation of "the world is gray because people don't agree with me."

People have different perspectives. That is neither right nor wrong, it is what is.

The truth should not be for sale. Rewarding people for making false claims is wrong. It may make financial sense but only because no one is willing to prosecute for filing false reports and/or perjury.

I'm sorry but it is wrong. It's a racket that costs more tax dollars in the long run.

How? Honestly, to have a society that prosecuted every arguably "false" (or even just "mistaken") fact in a police report would require dozens more prosecutors, tens of more judges, and hundred of thousands (or more) in taxes.

And consider this - how many officers get everything exactly correct in reports? Each mistake would then run the risk of that officer being prosecuted.

Really? You would volunteer for this?

Well, I didn't say I'd volunteer. I would recognize they could get a warrant pretty easily, and I sure would try to avoid being so impolite as to say FU.

'Officer I was in fear for my life. I wish to speak to my lawyer' end of discussion without representation. That admonition does not give one a warm and fuzzy feeling about how any information developed in any way may be used. " ... can and will be used against you in a court of law." don't 'ya know

All good advice. Difficult to keep to that script in the moment, but still good advice.

 

[phylodog]

We can agree to disagree. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I refuse to accept the compromise. Compromise has just about brought this country to its knees.

 

[T.Lex]

We can agree to disagree. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I refuse to accept the compromise. Compromise has just about brought this country to its knees.

My friend, sometimes it is not as simple as "agree to disagree."

This is a fundamental issue.

Compromise has not brought this country to its knees. Rather, it is the failure to compromise. The intractable belief that the only way is the way of the true believer.

But, out of respect for you personally, I will bail.

 

[phylodog]

I'll just agree to disagree then.

All of the talking in the world will not change my position anyway.

 

[Fargo]

I'll just agree to disagree then.

All of the talking in the world will not change my position anyway.

Consider this, the qualified immunity you receive as a police officer is definitely a huge gray compromise directly opposed to the black and white truth you are referring to.

There is a completely different, much higher, legal standard for suing a police officer than a citizen.

Are we going to do away with that in this quest for absolute truth at all costs?

 

[foszoe]

My friend, sometimes it is not as simple as "agree to disagree."

This is a fundamental issue.

Compromise has not brought this country to its knees. Rather, it is the failure to compromise. The intractable belief that the only way is the way of the true believer.

But, out of respect for you personally, I will bail.

As a Christian, I know Truth and it is a person. The world is black and white. No matter how much we try to obfuscate it , Truth is an objective value. There is always one right answer to any question. Whether we as human beings can discern it is a different issue.

 

[phylodog]

Consider this, the qualified immunity you receive as a police officer is definitely a huge gray compromise directly opposed to the black and white truth you are referring to.

There is a completely different, much higher, legal standard for suing a police officer than a citizen.

Are we going to do away with that in this quest for absolute truth at all costs?

Q.I. doesn't seem to be a gray area to me. I can be granted protection from frivolous lawsuits when there is no violation of clearly established law. I don't believe it is reserved only for police officers either if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Fargo]

Q.I. doesn't seem to be a gray area to me. I can be granted protection from frivolous lawsuits when there is no violation of clearly established law. I don't believe it is reserved only for police officers either if I'm not mistaken.

If this protection from frivolous lawsuits provided to you isn't creating some sort of gray area, why don't we provide it to everyone?

At the end of the day, qualified immunity functions as a bar to keep most lawsuits against police officers from going in front of a jury. This is so in many circumstances even if the court rules that the police officer was not correct on the law and in fact did violate it.

How does that serve black and white truth?

Never mind that the Indiana and Federal tort claims acts provide a whole ton of special rules and protections for governmental employees like yourself that don't apply to others. Look up what contributory negligence means within the context of the Indiana tort claims act.

Police officers receive the greatest protections and most special rules, protections and circumstances of pretty much anyone in the legal system.

 

[long coat]

I did a little searching and found he was arrested for MIP, it said nothing about him being drunk.
One story said the car was in the drive way and another said the LEO "saw a running car on the street with a group of people inside."

 

[kiddchaos]

Wow, it's been awhile since I've been on this thread.

And justice was almost served. Would have rather seen Kreb's in jail than a fine to the city. Thank you ewoodworth1 for the updates!

Couple settles excessive force lawsuit with Indianapolis for $370,000 - TheIndyChannel.com

 

[phylodog]

If this protection from frivolous lawsuits provided to you isn't creating some sort of gray area, why don't we provide it to everyone?

At the end of the day, qualified immunity functions as a bar to keep most lawsuits against police officers from going in front of a jury. This is so in many circumstances even if the court rules that the police officer was not correct on the law and in fact did violate it.

How does that serve black and white truth?

Never mind that the Indiana and Federal tort claims acts provide a whole ton of special rules and protections for governmental employees like yourself that don't apply to others. Look up what contributory negligence means within the context of the Indiana tort claims act.

Police officers receive the greatest protections and most special rules, protections and circumstances of pretty much anyone in the legal system.

This serves as justification for rewarding those who make false claims how?

I won't attempt to banter with you about Q.I. as you are quite obviously much better educated on it than I am, I've never needed it. There are quite a few legal distinctions between LEOs and everyone else. I don't see how protecting LEOs from frivolous lawsuits sits in a grey area considering the job they are tasked to perform but I don't have a law degree.

 

[in625shooter]

If this protection from frivolous lawsuits provided to you isn't creating some sort of gray area, why don't we provide it to everyone?

At the end of the day, qualified immunity functions as a bar to keep most lawsuits against police officers from going in front of a jury. This is so in many circumstances even if the court rules that the police officer was not correct on the law and in fact did violate it.

How does that serve black and white truth?

Never mind that the Indiana and Federal tort claims acts provide a whole ton of special rules and protections for governmental employees like yourself that don't apply to others. Look up what contributory negligence means within the context of the Indiana tort claims act.

Police officers receive the greatest protections and most special rules, protections and circumstances of pretty much anyone in the legal system.

As far as the Federal Government goes I can tell you from experience that if you act outside the scope of your employment or violate agency policy when something happens and you are sued civilly in Federal court the GOV WILL not represent you OR pick up the tab of any damages awarded agianst you. Fourtunatley the few times I have been sued it was frivilous. But with each case I had to appeal through my Agencies legal department for representation. Fortunately I play by the rules and was within my agencies policy and the AUSA assigned got it tossed out.

I have seen others that did not follow policy and were not represented and lost a sizable chunk of currency, on both legal fees as well as settelments.

So while it is a benifit aforded to LEO's if one has a foot outside their policy or scope of employment while one migt not be criminally charged you can get spanked.

Time will tell what pans out on this. What gets a lot of folks in troubled waters (both LEO's as well as citizens) is they sometimes don't know how to pick their battles and something mediocre turns to a little worse then to BAD.

 

[vitamink]

I did a little searching and found he was arrested for MIP, it said nothing about him being drunk.
One story said the car was in the drive way and another said the LEO "saw a running car on the street with a group of people inside."

Wow, it's been awhile since I've been on this thread.

And justice was almost served. Would have rather seen Kreb's in jail than a fine to the city. Thank you ewoodworth1 for the updates!

Couple settles excessive force lawsuit with Indianapolis for $370,000 - TheIndyChannel.com

My point exactly. We've only heard what the news had to say based on information in the lawsuit where the only side of the story is told by someone who stands to make a lot of money. I have never known the news to be correct even when they've had all the facts. I would like to read the officers statement as well as others in the car. I would like to see what evidence was collected. I certainly wouldn't want to make snap judgements based on no info. I think at this point I've heard 4-5 different versions.

 

[Fargo]

This serves as justification for rewarding those who make false claims how?

I won't attempt to banter with you about Q.I. as you are quite obviously much better educated on it than I am, I've never needed it. There are quite a few legal distinctions between LEOs and everyone else. I don't see how protecting LEOs from frivolous lawsuits sits in a grey area considering the job they are tasked to perform but I don't have a law degree.

Not sure how you took away from that that it justifies rewarding peoples false claims.

If a police officer has issue with how the Office of Corporation Counsel handles their lawsuit, they are more than free to assume the liability, hire their own attorney, and seek absolute truth by waiving all the artificial protection which exists because they are police officers.

In my experience police officers like having a free attorney as well as having any liability paid for by the taxpayers. They also like qualified immunity, Garrity rights, and the protections of the tort claims acts.

Lets not pretend there are not compromises going both ways here.

 

[Fargo]

As far as the Federal Government goes I can tell you from experience that if you act outside the scope of your employment or violate agency policy when something happens and you are sued civilly in Federal court the GOV WILL not represent you OR pick up the tab of any damages awarded agianst you. Fourtunatley the few times I have been sued it was frivilous. But with each case I had to appeal through my Agencies legal department for representation. Fortunately I play by the rules and was within my agencies policy and the AUSA assigned got it tossed out.

I have seen others that did not follow policy and were not represented and lost a sizable chunk of currency, on both legal fees as well as settelments.

So while it is a benifit aforded to LEO's if one has a foot outside their policy or scope of employment while one migt not be criminally charged you can get spanked.

Time will tell what pans out on this. What gets a lot of folks in troubled waters (both LEO's as well as citizens) is they sometimes don't know how to pick their battles and something mediocre turns to a little worse then to BAD.

I do not believe that simple violation of policy takes you outside of scope of employment, it is a lot more complex particularly as far as state law-enforcement.

Either way we are talking about within scope of employment matters here, hence representation by the Office of Corporation Counsel.

 

[in625shooter]

I do not believe that simple violation of policy takes you outside of scope of employment, it is a lot more complex particularly as far as state law-enforcement.

Either way we are talking about within scope of employment matters here, hence representation by the Office of Corporation Counsel.

I am just respectfully discussing things here but what I am refering to when a subject might become injured and decides to take legal action. The thing is now more than a few years ago with the advent of facebook, youtube and any other social media people (a lot of them and across about every economic, and social class there is) go out of their way to try and stir up the masses and accuse everyone they see dollar signes behind of not knowing their job, Not just Police officers but doctors, big Chain stores you name it. They file as much frivilous lawsuits as they will. This is some what encouraged by large metro agencies paying hush money out of court settlements. So much so that we now have a culture where it goes above a department taking care of a "Oops" and folks that want to get that lottery type payout, If they have it coming sure, by all means make it right but the fact is most do not. They are going after the agency or Officers and making enough noise hopping they get the out of court settlement. JMHO and some things I have observed. I have seen Officers not even do anything wrong, and the agency just pay out several thousand dolars to move on.

 

[phylodog]

Not sure how you took away from that that it justifies rewarding peoples false claims.

If a police officer has issue with how the Office of Corporation Counsel handles their lawsuit, they are more than free to assume the liability, hire their own attorney, and seek absolute truth by waiving all the artificial protection which exists because they are police officers.

In my experience police officers like having a free attorney as well as having any liability paid for by the taxpayers. They also like qualified immunity, Garrity rights, and the protections of the tort claims acts.

Lets not pretend there are not compromises going both ways here.

Lets not pretend that the only difference between a police officer and every other citizen in the country is the shiny thing on their chest. I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and sate that qualified immunity was not developed because a judge somewhere really liked cops.

Police officers act under the authority of law, doesn't seem inappropriate that there should be law to protect an officer acting within and for it. People don't sue only individual officers because there's no money in it. Just like they don't sue McDonald's employees for serving hot coffee.

 

[Fargo]

I am just respectfully discussing things here but what I am refering to when a subject might become injured and decides to take legal action. The thing is now more than a few years ago with the advent of facebook, youtube and any other social media people (a lot of them and across about every economic, and social class there is) go out of their way to try and stir up the masses and accuse everyone they see dollar signes behind of not knowing their job, Not just Police officers but doctors, big Chain stores you name it. They file as much frivilous lawsuits as they will. This is some what encouraged by large metro agencies paying hush money out of court settlements. So much so that we now have a culture where it goes above a department taking care of a "Oops" and folks that want to get that lottery type payout, If they have it coming sure, by all means make it right but the fact is most do not. They are going after the agency or Officers and making enough noise hopping they get the out of court settlement. JMHO and some things I have observed. I have seen Officers not even do anything wrong, and the agency just pay out several thousand dolars to move on.

I agree with you on pretty much everything in the above. I understand why q.i. and all the other protections exist; it is because of scammers and folk who will gladly lie to get at a hated cop.

My point is that the whole thing is an exercise in compromise going both ways. Cops get tons of extra protections and on the flip side some cases get settled that maybe shouldn't.

I really don't think the cops want the compromises in their direction to go away though...

 

[Denny347]

Just to follow up on this, I'm skeptical that you'd really say FU in that situation. (Nothing personal.)

If I, as a civilian, am involved in a shooting that I claim is self-defense, on New Year's day, then I think its going to be pretty standard to be tested for alcohol. Maybe not a PBT (might as well make a WAG as to my BAC). But just those circumstances would probably be enough for a warrant to for a blood draw.

It is NOT illegal to be intoxicated on your own property or while discharging a firearm, why would a test need to be done? Only to try to screw you over. WE will never ask for one. Hell no. I've had your EXACT situation presented happen and the alcohol was inconsequential to the detectives.

 

[Denny347]

Consider this, the qualified immunity you receive as a police officer is definitely a huge gray compromise directly opposed to the black and white truth you are referring to.

There is a completely different, much higher, legal standard for suing a police officer than a citizen.

Are we going to do away with that in this quest for absolute truth at all costs?

Maybe if we convinced City Legal that our reputation is worth fighting for, that refusing to settle righteous cases and demanding plaintiffs to pay legal costs when they loose, will result in fewer suites. Right now it's open season for free money paid by the taxpayers.