Widow Sues Officer Who Shot Her Gun Wielding Husband

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Amazing, truly amazing that this lady is suing. I know the FPD can be a bit aggressive at times but this certainly appears as if it was justified. What kind of advice is she getting from her lawyer, "

Ronald C. Hunt, of the Newark firm Hunt, Hamlin and Ridley... did not return a call seeking comment Monday"?? Guess he is assuming the township will settle to keep it out of court. Taxpayers take it up the arse again!

 

I'm guessing the H in his name is silent!

 

http://www.mycentral...g-township-cops

[Krdshrk 3,878]

Ugh... They better not settle on this......

[AnthonyG 36]

All I can say is what the hell. I guess cops have to get shot before they can defend themselves now.

[NicePants 58]

Wait, so this state won't even protect OFFICERS who defend themselves from civil cases? Hell, I guess we really all are in the same boat.

[dtown223 12]

The suit describes the shooting as

"An unprovoked assault and battery"

The lawyers who perpetuate cases like these should be tried for treason.

Where did millions of dollars go from the municipal budget?

Money that could've been used for schools, senior services, food banks?

Right into the pockets of degenerate lawyers, unjustly reaping profit at the expense of decent, hardworking people

 

trea·son/ˈtrēzən/

Noun:

The crime of betraying one's country,

The action of betraying someone or something.

 

[PeteF 1,044]

Can you say "Frivolous"?

 

Can the cop who shot the idiot, sue the idiot's family for the emotional hardship he is going through?

[kmill77 3]

It is truly terrible that a lawsuit like this is even possible!

A good judge should spit on these guys as he kicks them out of the courtroom.

+1 These lawyers should be tried for treason!

[Qel Hoth 33]

Aren't statements made in court filings done so under oath?

 

If saying shooting someone pointing a gun at you is “unprovoked assault and battery,” and “was without justification and was committed negligently and/or intentionally, wantonly, and with malicious motive and intent,” when it was ruled a justified use of force by a Grand Jury isn't perjury, I don't know what is.

 

The lawyers and the plaintiffs should face perjury charges, and the lawyers should be disbarred...

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Just goes to prove that a "domestic" is the worst call a cop has to deal with!

 

This is BS but as they say you CAN sue the Pope...doesn't mean you'll win! What we need here in this Country is to take a little something from UK law: If you file an eroneous suit and lose, you PAY the other side's attourney's fees. That would keep some of these suits from ever being filed! Note: I said eroneous suits, NOT ALL suits, so if you had a really good case of abuse of the system, you could still file.

[Soju 153]

I find it odd that in so many threads people mention to reserve judgment until more information is revealed, yet here, everyone is saying to throw them to the wolves? Did it not say he was shot inside his own home? How can you be certain HE wasn't trying to defend himself? Sometimes things are not as they initially appear.

 

I refer you to the Philly incidents where twice, an officer, did in fact shoot people in their own homes unprovoked. Is this the same thing? I don't think so. But to say a wife who lost her husband has no grounds for any restitution on what she feels was an unjust action, I can't agree with that.

 

If she is wrong, she won't win her case. Or that is how the system is suppose to work. It isn't meant to immediately throw EITHER side to the wolves.

 

I lose more and more faith in humanity as the days go on.

[Jon 264]

I find it odd that in so many threads people mention to reserve judgment until more information is revealed, yet here, everyone is saying to throw them to the wolves? Did it not say he was shot inside his own home? How can you be certain HE wasn't trying to defend himself? Sometimes things are not as they initially appear.

 

I refer you to the Philly incidents where twice, an officer, did in fact shoot people in their own homes unprovoked. Is this the same thing? I don't think so. But to say a wife who lost her husband has no grounds for any restitution on what she feels was an unjust action, I can't agree with that.

 

If she is wrong, she won't win her case. Or that is how the system is suppose to work. It isn't meant to immediately throw EITHER side to the wolves.

 

I lose more and more faith in humanity as the days go on.

 

I can't speak for everyone here but I remember this case since I live in Somerset, and the perp was shot on his front lawn after first fleeing from responding units, then turning around to fire his weapon at them. The officer was also cleared in front of a grand jury. This lawsuit is pure BS plain and simple.

[fumanchu182 23]

I find it odd that in so many threads people mention to reserve judgment until more information is revealed, yet here, everyone is saying to throw them to the wolves? Did it not say he was shot inside his own home? How can you be certain HE wasn't trying to defend himself? Sometimes things are not as they initially appear.

 

I refer you to the Philly incidents where twice, an officer, did in fact shoot people in their own homes unprovoked. Is this the same thing? I don't think so. But to say a wife who lost her husband has no grounds for any restitution on what she feels was an unjust action, I can't agree with that.

 

If she is wrong, she won't win her case. Or that is how the system is suppose to work. It isn't meant to immediately throw EITHER side to the wolves.

 

I lose more and more faith in humanity as the days go on.

 

However your sane thinking is not the rationale that most have. I think in certain situations a civil case should be denied because the criminal case is not apparent. The officer shot the man, in a court of law they decided it was not a crime therefore it should not have civil merit. I feel for both sides at this point but any more of this story is going to make me sick...

[NJdiverTony 27]

The lawyers working with this woman to file this lawsuit are despicable! So is the woman, if you ask me. I hope the judge throws this case out very quickly.

[rdsmith3 19]

I find it odd that in so many threads people mention to reserve judgment until more information is revealed, yet here, everyone is saying to throw them to the wolves? Did it not say he was shot inside his own home? How can you be certain HE wasn't trying to defend himself? Sometimes things are not as they initially appear.

 

I refer you to the Philly incidents where twice, an officer, did in fact shoot people in their own homes unprovoked. Is this the same thing? I don't think so. But to say a wife who lost her husband has no grounds for any restitution on what she feels was an unjust action, I can't agree with that.

 

If she is wrong, she won't win her case. Or that is how the system is suppose to work. It isn't meant to immediately throw EITHER side to the wolves.

 

I lose more and more faith in humanity as the days go on.

 

You make a good point that we do not know all the facts (and never will). However, the fact that a grand jury cleared the officer -- not an internal investigation, but a grand jury -- would seem to indicate that the shooting was justified. Also, the 911 call was placed by the child, not the wife, so I infer that she was genuinely fearful for her mother's wellbeing. In other words, it does not seem to be the case of a wife making an idle threat to call 911 during an argument. So we have an alleged assault by a husband that was heated enough that the daughter called 911; we have a man with a loaded handgun; and we have a responding officer shooting the man. A grand jury investigated and cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.

 

Meanwhile, the lawsuit goes beyond mere negligence, and claims that the officer acted with "malicious motive and intent."

 

If the lawsuit had just stopped at negligence, I might agree with you that we should not rush to judgment against the attorney. However, given all the above, I am comfortable with concluding that either the attorney or the woman, or both, are being motivated by pure greed.

[halbautomatisch 60]

Just goes to prove that a "domestic" is the worst call a cop has to deal with!

 

This is BS but as they say you CAN sue the Pope...doesn't mean you'll win! What we need here in this Country is to take a little something from UK law: If you file an eroneous suit and lose, you PAY the other side's attourney's fees. That would keep some of these suits from ever being filed! Note: I said eroneous suits, NOT ALL suits, so if you had a really good case of abuse of the system, you could still file.

 

 

 

+1

 

This is the law in most of Europe as well, and it does greatly minimize frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers have sanitized the way we live our lives in this country.

 

This is why Remington went from having 2 or so pages in the owners manual for a model 700 made in the 1960's on how to adjust the trigger, to having non adjustable triggers in the 1980's.

[Soju 153]

You make a good point that we do not know all the facts (and never will). However, the fact that a grand jury cleared the officer -- not an internal investigation, but a grand jury -- would seem to indicate that the shooting was justified. Also, the 911 call was placed by the child, not the wife, so I infer that she was genuinely fearful for her mother's wellbeing. In other words, it does not seem to be the case of a wife making an idle threat to call 911 during an argument. So we have an alleged assault by a husband that was heated enough that the daughter called 911; we have a man with a loaded handgun; and we have a responding officer shooting the man. A grand jury investigated and cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.

 

Agreed. I wasn't saying she is right. Quite the opposite. I just was commenting on the oddity of people quick to almost defend sometimes, in the sake of "reserving judgment because they don't have all the facts", yet other times, are quick to attack for the same reason. Though who is right or wrong IS the root of the thread, and the case, the way people determine that is an issue. It is often hard to look at things objectively when you have a predetermined view. Again...I am not saying this is necessarily the case. It is a general observation.

 

 

Meanwhile, the lawsuit goes beyond mere negligence, and claims that the officer acted with "malicious motive and intent."

 

If the lawsuit had just stopped at negligence, I might agree with you that we should not rush to judgment against the attorney. However, given all the above, I am comfortable with concluding that either the attorney or the woman, or both, are being motivated by pure greed.

 

She doesn't have a case unless it was malicious. I would be more concerned if it was just for negligence. If the truth is close to what I am reading, being police are called, guy is angry, gun is involved, nobody is winning any criminal or civil trial for police negligence. There is only a case if the officer acted maliciously.

 

Again, I am not saying he did. I am not saying she has a case. I am making an observation, and reserving my judgment, as I am not intimately involved or knowledgeable on the specifics of the incident.

[Krdshrk 3,878]

I just was commenting on the oddity of people quick to almost defend sometimes, in the sake of "reserving judgment because they don't have all the facts", yet other times, are quick to attack for the same reason. Though who is right or wrong IS the root of the thread, and the case, the way people determine that is an issue. It is often hard to look at things objectively when you have a predetermined view. Again...I am not saying this is necessarily the case. It is a general observation.

 

2 years after the incident + the grand jury cleared all wrongdoings = frivolous lawsuit. That's all I needed to know.

[Soju 153]

2 years after the incident + the grand jury cleared all wrongdoings = frivolous lawsuit. That's all I needed to know.

 

I know right. Who should be bothered with trivial "frivolous" things like facts and specifics when a quick generalization is all you need.

[Krdshrk 3,878]

I know right. Who should be bothered with trivial "frivolous" things like facts and specifics when a quick generalization is all you need.

 

All generalizations are false.

 

[EX Carnival man 223]

This whole state is upside down

[Soju 153]

All generalizations are false.

 

 

 

<<<<Point is over here

 

Krdshrk is over there>>>>

 

Things have to be substantiated. I can't just manifest something as true in my mind, based of generalizations, (which by definition, are generally true) and call it good. Things don't, or should I say, shouldn't work that way. But of course if you want to jump to conclusions and use a witty poster to back up yourself, knock yourself out. I will counter with a quote.

 

"A witty sayings proves nothing." - Voltaire

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Anyone can file suit against anyone else for anything at anytime. Whether the suit will actually be heard by a judge, go to trial and be decided in the plaintiff's favor is the important question. People in the US file "ridiculous" suits all the time.

 

I get outraged when "ridiculous" suits make into "ridiculous" judgements and precedents, but not just when a suit is filed.

[KpdPipes 388]

Had one of my coworkers do a dumb thing one night, Reached into a stolen car he had stopped to turn off the ignition. Turd driving said stolen car rolled up the window trapping my co-workers arm dropped in gear and drove off. he tried crushing my guy against a parked car at which time my guy drew his weapon and fired 3 shots, 2 went into the back seat, one went through both biceps of the driver. he dropped free, stolen car crashed. About 6 or 7 weeks later he received his "Notice of intent to file a Civil Suit" with the Return address the County jail. Luckily the Assignment Judge at the county stopped it cold, but that isnt always the case.

[Qel Hoth 33]

I hope the dirtbag is getting tried for attempted murder? Hopefully that will keep him away from the good people for a bit. Then again this is Jersey...

[Maksim 1,504]

civil suit.... ie OJ.

 

Once again, you dont have to be proven guilty, more likely guilty than not is just fine.

 

there is the criminal court, and the civil court system. criminal is about time, civil about money. =P