Seattle Pays 10 Mil For Body Slam

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,418
    149
    Negligence is the absence of reasonable care. I'm glad the legal experts are willing to lie and distort and make ignorant references like the "McDonald's coffee case," which, for the record:


    1. The infamous McDonalds coffee which the coffee cup lady (Stella Liebeck) bought was 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius) at standard atmospheric pressure. 185 degree liquid can cause third degree full-thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. McDonald's admitted that coffee could not be consumed at those temperatures.
    2. When the coffee cup lady spilled her McDonalds coffee into her lap, the car was parked and she was in the passenger, not driver, seat. She was NOT trying to drive and drink coffee at the same time.
    While I agree with the rest of your post. McDonalds was wrong, coffee can be consumed at those temperatures. I know a guy who with a fresh brewed pot pours himself a cup and puts it in the microwave for a minute to get it up to boiling and then starts drinking right away.:n00b: How the hell he does it I have no idea but he does. But he likes his coffee hot.

    And from what I've read she wasn't driving but the car wasn't parked. She set it on the dash and her son? I believe took off and it fell on her lap. I could be wrong on that though.

    3: Any officer in a tactical uniform also would have slammed this guy against a wall. The dark coloration of the uniform apparently bleeds into the brain of whomever is wearing it and clouds their judgement.

    This officer needs to be punished for his actions, up to and including termination. Despite the intention, an incident like this can not be ignored or minimized. The civil suit against the city is the correct outcome for this situation. It is not right for the family of the victim of the tac uniform to have to pay out of pocket for injuries that he didn't deserve, whether they could have been avoided or not by not running from someone who's not dressed like a nurse.

    I said that the guy deserved what he got, the officer acted perfectly.(for any readers this was edited, this is not what Love the 1911 actually posted, I cut out a few words)

    Nope hopefully no officer would body slam the guys head into the wall because of his outfit. But perhaps the guy wouldn't of ran if the LEO was identifiable as one.

    For myself I think criminal charges would probably be best the best outcome. As it is the officer quite possibly is going to keep his job, and suffer no out of pocket expense. I would like to see him facing jail time, same as I would if I did the same thing.

    And no tin foil hat, but easy as said is done.:D

    After reading this article from 1/24, I would agree more with the uniform issues. Most "tactical" uniforms are easily recognized as being police uniforms. This was obviously not the case here, per the eyewitness accounts.

    My bigger concern is the 2nd officer who "chuckled" while confirming the 1st officer's story. I missed the joke in the video or in the story that would lead a human being to chuckle about someone else having the back of their head caved in.

    As for criminal charges, it is unfortunate that the prosecutor did not find reason to file any charges in this case. In Indiana, the filing of all charges is up to the prosecutor and no one else. The prosecutor does not answer to anyone until election time about why they did or did not file charges on someone. Not organizing a grand jury seems like an easy point of evidence to point to corruption between the police force and the prosecutor's office. From the stories that have been submitted by the papers and the obvious video evidence, criminal charges seem like a given. I believe bouncers, security guards, loss prevention, etc. would have been charged as well as any other citizen if similar circumstances had involved them.

    +1 and I would rep you if I could again. From what I've read that you've posted here, it would be a honor to be arrested by you. :): Well maybe not, but you seem to be a good cop, and that is a compliment.

    Does anyone have any insight to the advantages of having police that dress like soldiers, in all black, patrol subways and bus routes?

    It's scary and is supposed to intimidates the bad guys. Same as EBRs scare the liberals.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom