PDA

View Full Version : Woman suing the policeman who saved her life!



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

cruisin
06-23-2012, 01:22 AM
This is just mind boggling: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/woman_held_at_knifepoint_in_wo.html

Anita18
06-23-2012, 01:27 AM
This is why people are so hesitant to be Good Samaritans nowadays. :shuffle: You could get sued for trying to help someone!

cruisin
06-23-2012, 01:35 AM
It also makes you wonder if that officer would do the same thing again. How can we expect officers to do the right thing if they will be sued? It is so wrong.

berthesghost
06-23-2012, 02:06 AM
Both Shane and her husband, Ronald Shane, "are suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and both have been dramatized from this incident," according to the tort claim notice filed by their lawyer, David Corrigan of Eatontown.:lol:
I bet they are both "dramatized"! :lol:

Southpaw
06-23-2012, 02:08 AM
My reader's imagination has put the Everybody Loves Raymond parents in as the plaintiffs.

Alex Forrest
06-23-2012, 02:26 AM
This is why people are so hesitant to be Good Samaritans nowadays. :shuffle: You could get sued for trying to help someone!

Gosh, almost twenty years ago I was friends with a medical student who stopped to render aid in a horrific car accident. One or two people died, two others were transported to the county hospital. My friend stuck around to help and do as much as he could. Guess what? He was SUED by the families for failing to give, I don't know, "perfect" aid? AND the medical school he was attending didn't have his back saying "This wasn't on hospital property". Well, that would make me consider never wanting to get involved in helping out in emergency situations. The Good Samaritan Act only deals with people who have no medical knowledge. So if they help out during an emergency and just try to imagine what George Clooney would have done on ER they are okay. A med student who has better skills is at a total liability. That goes for nurses, resp techs, ANYONE with extra special training.

People sue for anything. I'd think this 62 y/o needs therapy for being pulled by her hair with a knife to her throat by a parolee, and not because a security guard shot her assailant in the head. Let's just see how this works out. Put me on a jury, this woman will be paying lawyer's fees and damages for the defendant.

ballettmaus
06-23-2012, 02:55 AM
I'd suggest that judges should be asked to throw those kind of lawsuits out of their courtrooms but it could then be argued that they may throw viable lawsuits out of their courtrooms, too.
I guess the solution would be not to award the ridiculous sums of money. The way it's handled in Germany, for example, isn't the right way either, however, I doubt the couple would sue if they faced the prospect of a mere 2000 dollars.
But as long as they award millions for no reason then people will sue, of course, and lawyers will happily take on those cases.

Someone should hammer into that lady's brain that she might not be alive if it hadn't been for the security officer. But maybe she would have preferred that... :rolleyes:

MacMadame
06-23-2012, 03:09 AM
This is why people are so hesitant to be Good Samaritans nowadays. :shuffle: You could get sued for trying to help someone!
Well anyone can get sued at any time by anyone for anything... but we still go about our business taking chances. :lol:


Well, that would make me consider never wanting to get involved in helping out in emergency situations. The Good Samaritan Act only deals with people who have no medical knowledge. So if they help out during an emergency and just try to imagine what George Clooney would have done on ER they are okay. A med student who has better skills is at a total liability. That goes for nurses, resp techs, ANYONE with extra special training.

Except in some places there are laws saying they have to help. So they just can't decide not to help either.

From the article

"Instead of attempting to resolve the situation, Barrett took out his gun and shot the suspect while he was holding Mrs. Shane," the paper states.
Ah, yet another person who watches too many police procedurals and thinks life is like TV where the cops can talk the suspect out of anything or just shoot him strategically to wound him and everything is resolved in the final 10 minutes. ;)

You know, the article wasn't very clear, but I suspect from how it's worded that the couple is suing mostly the township. And maybe the mall management. But the way our legal system works, you can't say the those institutions were negligent without saying their employees, including the off-duty policeman, were negligent so they have to include his name on the legal papers. It's like when I was sued by someone I hit with my car. His wife also sued me for 10% of what he was suing for and my lawyer said they had to do that because how can he say his life was changed forever by the car accident if her life wasn't changed in anyway worth suing about.

Sometimes our legal system is strange.

KHenry14
06-23-2012, 04:28 AM
So, she sues him because he killed him....bet she would have sued him if he didn't kill him and tried to talk the knife out of his hand.

cruisin
06-23-2012, 04:40 AM
My reader's imagination has put the Everybody Loves Raymond parents in as the plaintiffs.

:rofl:


So, she sues him because he killed him....bet she would have sued him if he didn't kill him and tried to talk the knife out of his hand.

He was in a no win situation. Mind boggling ths the victim is traumatized by the officer saving her and not the perpetrator attacking her.

Karina1974
06-23-2012, 12:40 PM
This is why people are so hesitant to be Good Samaritans nowadays. :shuffle: You could get sued for trying to help someone!

That why there are Good Samaritan laws (which incidentally don't apply in this situation). We have one in NY State.

http://www.newyorkinjurylaw-blog.com/2010/05/good-samaritan-laws-liability-for-voluntary-acts-new-york-personal-injury-attorney/


Certainly, however, the public policy in most, , if not all, states, and definitely in New York, is to encourage the performance of life saving acts. To this end, there is a “Good Samaritan” law (Public Health Law, Article 30, Section 3000-a) that specifically establishes protection for anyone acting as a “Good Samaritan.”

The law applies in the following circumstances:
—It applies to ANY person (and NOT just medical personnel)
—The person must act without any expectation of monetary compensation
—The act must take place outside a hospital or other medical facility

Under those circumstances, the person rendering the aid will not be held liable for either injuries or death allegedly caused by any act of that “Good Samaritan” while rendering aid, UNLESS it is determined that the “Good Samaritan” was “grossly negligent” in performing his acts.

What constitutes “Gross Negligence” can differ in different situations. One word of advice, stay within your sphere of abilities. If you have never taken a course in CPR, or learned how to utilize a defibrillator, be reluctant to utilize those capabilities. A first step should always be to seek professional help if available. Most important: the motivation should always be to assist the person in dire distress–and certainly not to render yourself a “hero.”
One more word of advice: No one is required to lend assistance–unless, of course, you are responsible for the dire situation in which the injured party finds him or herself. If, however, the decision is made to assist someone, the injured person must not be left in a worsened condition than before the assistance began. So, if you decide to take an injured person to a hospital and, after driving a block you decide you’d rather not do it, for whatever reason, you cannot simply dump the person in the middle of a street where traffic now becomes a real hazard in addition to whatever injury the person sustained.





In addition, one of the first things you are taught in a First Aid certification class is to ASK whether the person who appears to need aid wants to be assisted, and they do have the right to refuse. If they do, you can still call 911, and then "bow out" once help arrives.

PeterG
06-23-2012, 06:24 PM
Did the police officer(s) act in a way to ensure the safety of the public? Or did the officers act in a way that forced a criminal into potentially harming a public citizen as a means to defend himself? The article states:


On March 8, Andres Garcia, 44, of Paterson, a convicted robber wanted for a parole violation, was fleeing police after a shoplifting incident in the mall. He grabbed Ellen Shane by her hair, pulled her away from her husband, held a knife to her throat and dragged her to the Sears store.

Was there no way for the officers to follow the criminal in a lesser way that would not make the criminal take such desperate action? Could the officers have simply followed the criminal until more back-up arrived and the criminal was no longer around members of the public?

Did the police officer have other methods available to him other than shooting the suspect? The article states:


"Instead of attempting to resolve the situation, Barrett took out his gun and shot the suspect while he was holding Mrs. Shane," the paper states.

It alleges township police, Barrett in particular, failed to provide proper safeguards or warning, violated state, county and local policies pertaining to shoplifting and were negligent in hiring, training and supervising personnel.

Shane is undoubtedly appreciative to still be alive. But that does not change the fact that the officers might have been much too gung-ho in dealing with a situation, which their presence escalated a shoplifting incident to a possible murder. The police also chose to shoot the suspect with the captive inches away from the bullet that killed him (traumatic to be so close to being killed by a police officer and traumatic to be so close to a murder). And if she was hurt by the suspect or from falling after he was shot, that is related to a possibly trigger-happy officer.

The issue is not whether someone saved her life or not. The issue is whether did the police act correct in all matters, or did they act excessively when other options were available to them?

michiruwater
06-23-2012, 06:58 PM
Isn't it really easy for a head shot to go wide? I'm not surprised she's upset. Is that the normal procedure, to just shoot for the head while he has a hostage without attempting to resolve the situation another way? I really doubt it.

MacMadame
06-23-2012, 09:06 PM
I don't know whether the policeman acted appropriately or not. I do know that when they shoot, they shoot to kill as that's the advice I was given in self-defense training. None of this movie crap where you shoot their knee cap out and they fall down and it's over. You shoot for the torso and you shoot until they stop moving. I'm sure police get more specific training and a sharpshooter does shoot for the head in some situations.

I also know that if someone was holding a knife to my throat and then was shot out from under me and I was covered by his blood and had a bullet that close to me that could have killed me, I would be very upset at best and pretty traumatized at worst.

It's so easy to make fun of this woman and/or get all outraged: How dare she sue the person who saved her life?!?! But the reality is that she now has medical and psychiatric bills that she didn't have before and her life will be changed forever and not in a happy way.

In our legal system, the only way to get monetary relief for those bills is to sue. Usually they start with threatening to sue and sometimes the other party knows settlement is inevitable and they move right to mediation or settlement talks. Sometimes they don't though and it depends on that laws in that state too.

I know when I was sued for over a million dollars, that the person suing me was going to get a fraction of that and that they deserved every penny. They were in the hospital for 3 months and I personally think they deserved something besides just getting their bills paid and their lost wages. They deserved something for "pain and suffering" because their life changed forever and very little of it was their fault.

And I think this woman deserves something too. She's been through hell. Who should pay it and how much money it should be is up for debate but to act like she should just go home and be happy to be alive and not be traumatized and not try to get her bills paid for seems really insensitive to me.

Cachoo
06-23-2012, 10:07 PM
Gosh, almost twenty years ago I was friends with a medical student who stopped to render aid in a horrific car accident. One or two people died, two others were transported to the county hospital. My friend stuck around to help and do as much as he could. Guess what? He was SUED by the families for failing to give, I don't know, "perfect" aid? AND the medical school he was attending didn't have his back saying "This wasn't on hospital property". Well, that would make me consider never wanting to get involved in helping out in emergency situations. The Good Samaritan Act only deals with people who have no medical knowledge. So if they help out during an emergency and just try to imagine what George Clooney would have done on ER they are okay. A med student who has better skills is at a total liability. That goes for nurses, resp techs, ANYONE with extra special training.

People sue for anything. I'd think this 62 y/o needs therapy for being pulled by her hair with a knife to her throat by a parolee, and not because a security guard shot her assailant in the head. Let's just see how this works out. Put me on a jury, this woman will be paying lawyer's fees and damages for the defendant.

That is disgusting.