Darwin winner

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I disagree. The cop did not take away the freedom of the minor to move about

As Bill would say, I call bullshit.

He was placed in handcuffs and placed in the police car. I think every reasonable person at that point would know they have been detained. Your freedom to move about is gone once detained. To prove that point, what do you think would have happened if the man had gotten out of the car and just walked away?
If your answer has some element of the minor being stopped, his freedom to move about was taken away.

[NCclimber 0]

I'm still not sure how placing someone under arrest makes the officer wholly responsibe for preventing that person from doing themselves harm???

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'm still not sure how placing someone under arrest makes the officer wholly responsibe for preventing that person from doing themselves harm???

I have said a couple of times that I think the officer is partly responsible. I agree that he is not wholly responsible, as I ahve said in this thread before too.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Shit. Cops just can't get a break from any direction. Their superiors, the media, their peers who bend the law and then invoke the Code of Silence, the public, Attorneys bringing civil suits. Makes one wonder how anyone lasts more than twenty minutes as a cop. One can only guess the reward in putting one arsewipe behind bars for a looooong time or saving one life makes the BS worth it.

It's a free country, no-one is forced to be a cop.

Cops do a great job of covering up their mistakes. The Jon Burge case in Chicago has been stonewalled by the Chicago Police Department for over ten years.

_____________________________

You said it all in one word... Chicago! Chicago has a looong history of bought-off police, politicians, judges and etc. Just from the original post here, the arresting officer, did all he could to protect that kid. What do you expect of a police officer? That they stand-over someone 'just in case'? It's a real shame, that kid got himself drunk and did what he did. That cop, did all he could within the guidelines of his job. I get real tired of people always having to 'blame' someone else. If, that cop had locked the kid in the trunk for his 'own safety', this never would've happened. The cop though, would've been charged with 'cruel and unusual punishment' or some other ridiculous charge. Everybody's always loking for a loophole or a big settlement. People are just not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.


Chuck

[Butters 0]

Do you consider the cop responsible in the following situation?

Same situation only the officer placed the minor in the backseat of the patrol car (which the minor is unable to escape from) and the minor purposely chokes on their own tongue and dies from asphyxiation.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Everybody's always loking for a loophole or a big settlement. People are just not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.


Chuck

Everyone rails against torts and screams for tort reform, until they're the plaintiff, and they want the settlement. Then torts are the tools of the little guy against a govt monolith.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Everybody's always loking for a loophole or a big settlement. People are just not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.


Chuck

Everyone rails against torts and screams for tort reform, until they're the plaintiff, and they want the settlement. Then torts are the tools of the little guy against a govt monolith.

________________________________

I think, if, you were to really look at a good number of big settlements in lawsuits, you'd find that, a lot of them are frivilous but, juries award them! We live in a 'lottery' society. Get the right numbers and BINGO! You're a winner!
I've been in situations where, I probably could have sued 'someone' but, I lookd at what I had done and saw where I had screwed-up. Not everyone looks at things like that, though.


Chuck


Chuck

[champu 1]

Quote

When you are handcuffed and in a police cruiser, you are generally not free anymore, but in the custody and control of a police officer, which also means they are responsible for you.

If you get arrested, handcuffed, and put in the back of a police car that is parked on railroad tracks, I think you'd be on to something. But I would consider getting out of the police car a pass on the protection that may have come by remaining in it.

I would equate the posted event roughly to trying to tunnel out of prison, digging into buried power lines, and electrocuting yourself.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

So the kid was an idiot, no argument there.

Given that minors are not considered responsible enough or have good enough judgment to vote OR CONSUME BOOZE, or be executed in most civilized jursidictions, and minors are not held to the same standards of behavior as adults, and drunks are clearly suffering from impaired judgment, does it not follow that the custodians of a drunk minor should be responsible? In this case, the minor was in police custody.

By taking a minor into custody, the police assumed responsibility for his safety.

So, you believe that authority should be responsible for protecting me from myself?

Are you a minor, in custody?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would rather live in a society where you maintain as many freedoms as possible and the accompanying responsibilities.

I agree, but that is not pertinent to this thread.

The police officer took away some of the freedoms of the your man. In doing so, the officer took on some responsibility for the well being of the young man. The officer subsequently failed in that duty and hence is partly responsible for the death of the young man.

I disagree. The cop did not take away the freedom of the minor to move about and thus the responsibility for moving about was still the minor's.

I think you do not comprehend the full meaning of being arrested.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Shit. Cops just can't get a break from any direction. Their superiors, the media, their peers who bend the law and then invoke the Code of Silence, the public, Attorneys bringing civil suits. Makes one wonder how anyone lasts more than twenty minutes as a cop. One can only guess the reward in putting one arsewipe behind bars for a looooong time or saving one life makes the BS worth it.

It's a free country, no-one is forced to be a cop.

Cops do a great job of covering up their mistakes. The Jon Burge case in Chicago has been stonewalled by the Chicago Police Department for over ten years.

_____________________________

You said it all in one word... Chicago! Chicago has a looong history of bought-off police, politicians, judges and etc. Just from the original post here, the arresting officer, did all he could to protect that kid. What do you expect of a police officer? That they stand-over someone 'just in case'? It's a real shame, that kid got himself drunk and did what he did. That cop, did all he could within the guidelines of his job. I get real tired of people always having to 'blame' someone else. If, that cop had locked the kid in the trunk for his 'own safety', this never would've happened. The cop though, would've been charged with 'cruel and unusual punishment' or some other ridiculous charge. Everybody's always loking for a loophole or a big settlement. People are just not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.


Chuck

Why does it have to be "hogtied" (JohnRich) or "locked in the trunk" (you)? Both are false dichotomies. How about locked in the back seat?

The definition of a minor is someone who society does not yet consider to be responsible for his or her actions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jasmin 0]

Quote

I can honestly say that if someone were to injure me, they will be paying the bill. Why would you want to take on debt that you otherwise would not of had if not for the party responsiible?

Its times like this I remember why I'm back in Oz and not still in the US.

My medical bills were largely covered by the government (healthcare here is pretty good) and I also have top level health cover.

I see no reason to go after someone in civil court (other than sheer pettiness) when criminal charges, memories and guilt will suffice.

I would not give up my standards and integrity for mere money.

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[freethefly 6]

Quote

My medical bills were largely covered by the government (healthcare here is pretty good) and I also have top level health cover.

Are you implying that the taxpayers, who are ultimately paying the bill, be held responsible for the actions of one being negligent and causing property and or bodily harm to another for the lost and or injury. Would you forgive some one who runs a stopsign and hits your car and pay the damage yourself? "No, they should pay for the damage. Hope they have insurance", i think you would say. You might say otherwise. Then, why not if you sustain an injury that is clearly the fault of another? If someone hits me while on the bike or in a car and I loose a limb, paralyzed, caused to lose work... they are going to pay. The party clearly not responsible should not be burden with any more other than having to show proof of his/her lost . A lost that would not had occured had not for the action of another.

Quote

I see no reason to go after someone in civil court (other than sheer pettiness) when criminal charges, memories and guilt will suffice.

There is nothing petty in demanding that another be responsible for their actions and compensate the one whom they caused harm to.

Quote

I would not give up my standards and integrity for mere money.

The standard has always been to be compensated for lose or injury that another has caused you. It goes back to the oldest recorded history. At one time it was goats and sheep. At another it was salt. Today it is the currency currently in use.
The integrity lies on the the guilty party. May it be a fender bender or minor to lethal bodily harm it is their responsibilty to correct it.
The money is merely the standard for what is deemed to of most value. What would you rather it be goats and sheep? "Ahhhh, sorry lady, I hit and smashed your fender. Here's a couple of goats"

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I would not give up my standards and integrity for mere money.

How about for LOTS of money? Let's negotiate.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I'm still not sure how placing someone under arrest makes the officer wholly responsibe for preventing that person from doing themselves harm???

Well, think about the language: someone in police custody has the police as their custodian. QED.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Richards 0]

Quote

I see no reason to go after someone in civil court (other than sheer pettiness) when criminal charges, memories and guilt will suffice.

I would not give up my standards and integrity for mere money.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Shit. Cops just can't get a break from any direction. Their superiors, the media, their peers who bend the law and then invoke the Code of Silence, the public, Attorneys bringing civil suits. Makes one wonder how anyone lasts more than twenty minutes as a cop. One can only guess the reward in putting one arsewipe behind bars for a looooong time or saving one life makes the BS worth it.

It's a free country, no-one is forced to be a cop.

Cops do a great job of covering up their mistakes. The Jon Burge case in Chicago has been stonewalled by the Chicago Police Department for over ten years.

_____________________________

You said it all in one word... Chicago! Chicago has a looong history of bought-off police, politicians, judges and etc. Just from the original post here, the arresting officer, did all he could to protect that kid. What do you expect of a police officer? That they stand-over someone 'just in case'? It's a real shame, that kid got himself drunk and did what he did. That cop, did all he could within the guidelines of his job. I get real tired of people always having to 'blame' someone else. If, that cop had locked the kid in the trunk for his 'own safety', this never would've happened. The cop though, would've been charged with 'cruel and unusual punishment' or some other ridiculous charge. Everybody's always loking for a loophole or a big settlement. People are just not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.


Chuck

Why does it have to be "hogtied" (JohnRich) or "locked in the trunk" (you)? Both are false dichotomies. How about locked in the back seat?

The definition of a minor is someone who society does not yet consider to be responsible for his or her actions.

_____________________________

What I'm getting at is, just how far do the police have to go to 'protect' someone in custody? I was being sarcastic about locking the kid in the trunk. Folks are real quick to knit-pick and condemn someone else for the job they did. Cops just aren't going to get a break! We don't know. Maybe, that cop decided the drunk kid would be all-right in the front seat. Maybe, his patrol car didn't have a 'cage' for the back seat. We don't know. We weren't there.
I don't know how to take being put in the same category as John Rich!


Chuck

[NCclimber 0]

This thread illustrates why personal injury litigation is booming. A whole lot of people in this country think if someone gets hurt, someone else is to blame and should be held accountable.

What so many people seem to be overlooking is this young man did this to himself. The officer shackled and secured him in a safe place. It was the boy's unwise actions that led to his death.

Using terms like guardian and custodian to put an unreasonable expectation on the officer just doesn't cut it, in my book.

The young man died by his own actions. Case closed.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you get arrested, handcuffed, and put in the back of a police car that is parked on railroad tracks, I think you'd be on to something. But I would consider getting out of the police car a pass on the protection that may have come by remaining in it.

Not if you are a drunk minor and by definition have a limited ability to make sound decisions.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Same situation only the officer placed the minor in the backseat of the patrol car (which the minor is unable to escape from) and the minor purposely chokes on their own tongue and dies from asphyxiation.

Probably not.

[Lastchance 0]

Whenever I got cuffed and stuffed I was put in the back seat where there are no door handles to get out. Why did the cop put him in the front seat?

I may be getting old but I got to see all the cool bands.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

This thread illustrates why personal injury litigation is booming. A whole lot of people in this country think if someone gets hurt, someone else is to blame and should be held accountable.

What so many people seem to be overlooking is this young man did this to himself. The officer shackled and secured him in a safe place.

The outcome suggests otherwise, doesn't it?

Quote

It was the boy's unwise actions that led to his death.

That's why MINORS are considered to have improperly developed judgment and sense of responsibilty. ADULTS are supposed to protect them from their unwise actions.

Quote

Using terms like guardian and custodian to put an unreasonable expectation on the officer just doesn't cut it, in my book.

I guess your book isn't an English dictionary.

Quote

The young man died by his own actions. Case closed.

Apparently the case is NOT closed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

At least you actually addressed my points.

Good for you.

[NCclimber 0]

[reply[

Quote

It was the boy's unwise actions that led to his death.

That's why MINORS are considered to have improperly developed judgment and sense of responsibilty. ADULTS are supposed to protect them from their unwise actions.

Quote

Unless they are having sex with a Democrat in Congress.

• Quote

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

[reply[

Quote

It was the boy's unwise actions that led to his death.

That's why MINORS are considered to have improperly developed judgment and sense of responsibilty. ADULTS are supposed to protect them from their unwise actions.

Quote

Unless they are having sex with a Democrat in Congress.

Did I claim that? Stick to the point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote