[quote=“Fry,post:7,topic:227685"”]
Meh. Right to petition for redress of grievances is a very important aspect of a free society. Just because a few try to abuse it for a free lunch ticket doesn’t mean we should put barriers to justice in place.
Take this case for instance. Cop cars have dash cams. Why do the cops now say they “think” there was a struggle and the cop might have been dragged? How the hell do you fire a gun when you’re being dragged by a car? Sounds fishy. What if your mom died and you think it may be because some power tripping cop unnecessarily shot someone?
I’m not saying this case has any merit, but you can’t decide that until arguing it in court.
[/quote]
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have the right to information, but we need to weed out the “free lunch ticket” abusers. I’m not saying there isn’t more information to be had here. It seems already some is coming out.
[quote=“Event,post:8,topic:227685"”]
This is 'Murica! Why work when you can sue someone?
Agreed. They haven’t released the dash cam footage have they? I wouldn’t call it a bs lawsuit until we know all the facts.
DISCLAIMER: I realize my statements here are kind of at odds with each other, we’ve all heard stories of all the BS lawsuits going around. Can’t say for certain if this is one of them, but we know that there are plenty.
[/quote]
I would like to see the dash cam as well. Will probably never be released.
[quote=“superfan99,post:9,topic:227685"”]
The information revealed from the investigation wouldn’t necessarily be made public. Sometime you have to sue to get the detail. A FOIL request might get it, but that’s not always a guarantee. Part of the reason for the “outrage” here is that it’s the sixth time the BPD has shot a suspect this year and the this is the third one to die.
It’s standard operating procedure for the plaintiff’s bar to sue everyone and anyone that’s potentially negligent. As I understand it, there’s a chance(though it’s unlikely) that the attorney could be sued for malpractice in the event that they failed to include a negligent party in a suit. Most (though not all) of the frivolous crap gets discharged on a motion and never makes it to court. I’m sure the estate of the driver that was shot, his insurance company, the owner of the car, the cop that shot him, etc. are all going to have suits filed against them too.
I go back and forth on whether or not we’re a sue happy nation, or the way our legal system has evolved prohibits you from getting any legal relief without filing suit.
[/quote]
Are we really saying that the families of the victims would not be privy to the information provided in the outcome of the investigation? Do we really need to sue to find out what happened? Is Brown Chiari suing the city for information or money?
[quote=“jay_g,post:18,topic:227685"”]
How about the contractor that installed them.
[/quote]
Oh nice. I wouldn’t be surprised if the manufacturer and installer of the light post aren’t named in the suit, along with the concrete contractor who poured the sidewalk the pole was sitting on, the bolt manufacturer that held the pole to the concrete, and the paint supplier and painter for not having a pole painted with paint to resist collisions which could result in it’s falling down on someone.
I’m interested in how this plays out. Channel 4 reported that the officers were actually assigned to the BMHA, but they’re still police. Why should they have to be investigated for pulling over a suspected drunk driver? Just because it’s not part of what they normally do wouldn’t restrict them from performing the duties of a full fledged police officer. Should they drive by a burning day care center because it’s not BMHA related? I find it hard to believe this suit was filed in an attempt to “get to the bottom of it”.