Civil trial likely for NH cop in shooting

[willbdavis]

This is what happens even if you're a cop. The bad guy (or the family of the bad guy if he's deceased) is going to sue you. Some country.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/23/civil_trial_likely_for_nh_cop_in_shooting_1290538119/

 

[Boghog1]

IIRC there is a law on the books here that is supposed to prevent this from happening in NH. I can't find it at the moment

 

[TheRoland]

I don't know the details of what happened here enough to comment.

Putting government actors generally beyond the reach of the courts hasn't exactly worked out well for citizens. I'm curious as to how this appears to be moving forward.

 

[soloman02]

IIRC there is a law on the books here that is supposed to prevent this from happening in NH. I can't find it at the moment

I'd like to know if it exists because as far as I am aware such a law does not exist in NH.

ETA: To clarify I am not aware of a law that applies to citizens.

 

[pdm]

If he's acting ultra vires, he should be held personally liable. But if the shooting was justified, the guy bringing the suit should have to pay all the costs.

 

[Alex]

Some country.

Great country! People can sue cops and let jury decide who's right who's wrong. That's what makes America great.
In most other countries, mind you, cops can beat the living s@#t out of you and kill you with little or no accountability to your family.

 

[pdm]

Great country! People can sue cops and let jury decide who's right who's wrong. That's what makes America great.
In most other countries, mind you, cops can beat the living s@#t out of you and kill you with little or no accountability to your family.

But loser pays tort reform is a must. I really detest the idea of sovereign immunity, it just sticks in my craw. But at the same time, there are legitimate functions of government that shouldn't be impeded by lawsuits. That way, government actors have a vested, personal interest in complying with the law. They go beyond that, inflict a tort on someone, they have to pony up their own cash. When it's someone else's cash on the line for their defense, people aren't as careful.

 

[KMaurer]

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

If either by law or just as a practical matter, police can't be held liable for their actions when they're wrong, there will be a tendency for police to abuse citizens whenever it suits them.
If it's easy to sue police when they cross the line, then police are going to tend avoid a lot of situations we want them to take care of.
If you make it possible to sue police for failure to protect and easy to sue for misconduct, you're going to have to pay people at least mid-six figures in order to get people to do the job.

I guess that's the sort of tough choices we're stuck with when life isn't as simple as a TV show. Where's the Lone Ranger when you need him?

Ken

 

[drgrant]

This is what happens even if you're a cop. The bad guy (or the family of the bad guy if he's deceased) is going to sue you. Some country.

Only if the ambulance chaser sees a pot of gold. My guess is this is an established LEO with a house, boat, etc, to steal. On the other hand if he was a rookie and didn't have much more than an apartment, a crapbox and a couple of guns, no ambulance chaser is going to run one of those kinds of suits for free, because there is no prize for him at the end game.

The best immunity from civil suits is being poor. They could still sue you, but it's hard to get blood from a stone.

-Mike

 

[MDW Guns]

The trouble is, that even if it gets dropped in the first round, it will cost the officer several thousand $$$.
On the other side, I would not shoot at a moving vehicle with a pistol.
It is mostly uneffective and draws this type of law suits.
Also the risk of collateral damage is too risky.

 

[Kicker96FS]

I fail to see how this idiot thinks he can win a suit like this after reading this:

A report by the New Hampshire attorney general's office says Tetrault fired into the passenger side of the van driven by Soucie after it rammed a cruiser and he refused orders to stop.

 

[Kicker96FS]

The trouble is, that even if it gets dropped in the first round, it will cost the officer several thousand $$$.
On the other side, I would not shoot at a moving vehicle with a pistol.
It is mostly uneffective and draws this type of law suits.
Also the risk of collateral damage is too risky.

If he looses, the cop can sue for legal costs against this arsehole, and what are you supposed to do, wait until he does stop after running you down or another cop before shooting?

I was not there, neither were you, maybe it was moving at like 5 mph, and he was 5 feet away, who knows?

 

[namedpipes]

In an equal system, loser pays seems fine. But if I as a pauper sue my wealthy neighbor because his new driveway cuts across my property, and I lose because my lawyer is ok but no match for the team of lawyers and mountain of legal work the other guy has, now *I* have to pay for *that*? Change the circumstances to doctors and an accidental death, or whatever. Make a case too expensive to pursue and the other side will lose.

SOMETHING needs reform, but I don't think it is as simple as "loser pays".

 

[JoeyD]

The 1st thing the jury should have to decide is if the cop had reason to shoot the suspect. If the suspect tried to run the cops over to get away then he got what was coming to him.

 

[TomH]

In an equal system, loser pays seems fine. But if I as a pauper sue my wealthy neighbor because his new driveway cuts across my property, and I lose because my lawyer is ok but no match for the team of lawyers and mountain of legal work the other guy has, now *I* have to pay for *that*? Change the circumstances to doctors and an accidental death, or whatever. Make a case too expensive to pursue and the other side will lose.

SOMETHING needs reform, but I don't think it is as simple as "loser pays".

It simply shouldn't cost that much to defend yourself. There is no need for the ridiculous paperwork, etc. Go in, present your side, done. What else is needed here that I'm not seeing?

 

[Skald]

If it's proved to be a 'good shoot' down in FL the perp, or his family, is not allowed to try and seek civil action. Not 100% sure, but I think if your in the commission of a crime, you are not allowed to seek civil recourse, or your family (IE, breaking your leg in a B&E and then sue for a slippery floor).

 

[quinnt]

NH RSA

CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION
Section 627:4
627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.

[Paragraph II-a effective January 1, 2011.]

II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
(d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1981, 347:1, 2, eff. Aug. 16, 1981. 2010, 361:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2011.

 

[strangenh]

What you mean to quote is that plus this:

627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct.

 

[GSG]

DOJ has more details on the shooting.

http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/091307.html

On Saturday night, September 1, 2007, at approximately 10:48 p.m., Officer Tetreault and Officer Brian Rathman of the Hampton Falls Police Department responded to the town of Kensington pursuant to a mutual aid request for assistance by Officer Scott Cain of the Kensington Police Department. Officer Cain was involved in a pursuit of a white Chevrolet Astro van that had been involved in suspicious activity and the driver was suspected of driving while impaired.

Sounds like it was a clean shoot. Same cop just did some more life saving too:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100212-NEWS-2120358

Seems like an all around good guy.

SOMETHING needs reform, but I don't think it is as simple as "loser pays".

Tort reform. Lawsuits in general have gotten totally out of control.

If it's proved to be a 'good shoot' down in FL the perp, or his family, is not allowed to try and seek civil action. Not 100% sure, but I think if your in the commission of a crime, you are not allowed to seek civil recourse, or your family (IE, breaking your leg in a B&E and then sue for a slippery floor).

Sort of. You're immune from civil liability from a good shoot in FL, but you can still wind up spending years in court fighting it.

 

[namedpipes]

It simply shouldn't cost that much to defend yourself. There is no need for the ridiculous paperwork, etc. Go in, present your side, done. What else is needed here that I'm not seeing?

If I happen to have money to burn and you sue me, I may hire a lawyer that will tie yours in knots and otherwise make your life an insanely expensive hell. I win through sheer expenditure of money and wearing you down. Now I sue YOU to recover my expenses defending myself...

THAT said, Small Claims court is supposed to work as you suggest, individual against individual. Loser pays *might* be a fairer system in THAT arena, but the costs are as small as the stakes.