Cop Does Good

Jeez, that robber took a beating. Bullet went through the frikkin' nose and he was still going for a while there...

Good for that cop.

Good for him indeed. I just hope that last bit about his conscience getting to him isn't going to be the way of it for him. He did try everything he could have to get the guy to stop without killing him, to no avail. He did what he had to do, and being wracked by guilt would be poor payback.

On the front page this says "Cop Does Good" and underneath, "Frank Cobretti", and I think someone around me noticed I said, out loud, "Duh."

That family is going to sue the cop and the department like crazy. So are all the people in that store.

Cynical much?

Because he shot and killed a guy who was holding up a store and repeatedly fired at him? I'd like to see what legal leg they have to stand on if that happens.

Until it he was rightfully nailed for bankruptcy fraud, a guy like Stephen Yagman would've been on it in a second.

The citizens could sue because of emotional distress and psychological damages and the usual bullshit because a guy died in front of them. They'll forget the cop saved their lives.

Yes, unfortunately, he had to use deadly force even though he didn't want too. I'm not saying the cop was in the wrong. It's just in America you can sue anyone, anytime, for anything.

The family of the crinimal will probably try and sue as well but yeah, they might not have much of a case. They'll make it a "wrongful death" suit, alleging the cop could have used non-violent ways to stop the crinimal. The department will settle and boom, the family gets money, er, I mean justice.

I'm curious as to why he aimed for the head. Was the robber's torso concealed by some shelving or something? Seems like it would be smarter to unload a few rounds center mass than hope for a decent headshot.

No such cases would make it past the pleading stage, meaning they would apply to sue and be denied permission. You can file to sue for anything, but that doesn't mean the courts will hear it.

This part of the story answers that question.

No, but the percentage-as-payment system for civil suits means that American lawyers have an extra incentive to push for excessively large payments, which makes the system look like a lottery for bystanders and accident victims, which makes more Americans want to take a stab at this whole 'suing' this which seems to be creating so many millionaires.

Then again, with the control that corporations have over healthcare and politics, maybe the American people need to sue more than people in other countries.

Well, see, this is where reading comprehension comes in handy.

Don't feel bad I missed part of that on my first read.

Depends on the state. As a Jersey attorney, I can tell you there is no such test here. A complaint gets filed pretty much automatically, and the defendant has to answer it or be placed in default, and if the default isn't vacated, havea judgment, probably in the amount the plaintiff is asking for or close to it, entered on the docket against them.

Of course, such a baseless complaint can theoretically be dismissed on a motion, but you need evidence to back up that motion, which you get thru the exchange of information in pre trial discovery. That's the part of litigation that takes the most time; documents and written questions to the parties are served, witnesses are deposed, expert reports prepared & served, etc.

And the rule here regarding summary jusgment dismissals is that all evidence has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non moving party (in this case the plaintiff). If the non-moving party can show the existence of a genuine issue of a material fact (in this case, probably the question of whetehr or not the officer was authorized to use deadly force in these circumstances), the motion will be denied, making trial or settlement the only options.

In any sane world, even Jersey, no case like this should survive past this stage. But it never ceases to amaze me how many seemingly obvious motions are denied by our learned judges. If the dead scumbag's family does sue, it'd REALLY be shitty if this scenario plays out to this stage.

The good news, of course, is that unless you get some willfully ignorany OJ jury types in the box, even if they do have to try it, who the hell's gonna find against a decorated hero cop? ESPECIALLY one that's REMORSEFUL, even? But a trial like that would take a long time & be very, very expensive. And there is the likelihood that the cop would get smeared in the process. To spare the city of Norfolk & its PD, to say nothing of the officer himself, all that grief, a settlement might be an economically reasonable decision, even if it is morally wrong.

I didn't feel it was necessary to provide the full civil procedure for a personal injury suit (but thanks for doing so, Iggy). My point was that taking the story as true, no bystander or family member could demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. The "victim" was in the process of committing a felony and fired first at the officer, who didn't go straight for the killing shot. Judging by this story alone, they'll have a rather large mountain to climb just to get to discovery.

I was really just responding to the general negativity about the ease of suing in America. Yeah, occasionally someone gets McDonald's in court over hot coffee or a burglar sues a homeowner because they cut themselves on their property, but there are mechanisms for dealing with frivolous suits, and 99% of the time they work.

You forgot the earlier part:
So the cop shot the robber in the chest twice, the robber shot at the cop's head (missing) so the cop shot at the robber's head. And that didn't even kill the robber immediately - he struggled against multiple cops, repeatedly, as he was arrested.

Sorry. I couldn't resist talking a little shop. I hope to God they have a system in place to strangle this monster in its cradle; I'm afraid it would live to at least adolescence in Jersey.

Funny you should mention the McDonald's coffe case. I was just talking to a fellow atty about that the other day, and she says what we don't hear about is that, apparently, that particular McDonald's had been storing coffee way beyond its usable date, & heating it to insanely hot temperatures, which somehow made it drinkable, and that the woman had to have a series of 4 skin grafts to her vagina (no word on whether or not they found any sand in it). Put in that perspective, the seemingly outrageous verdict makes a little more sense.

Yeah but coffee is still hot. The lady should have known that if she's ordering coffee. Coffee is hot. If it's expired coffee they're serving then they should be suing for that. If coffee is hot and you spill it on yourself that's your fault. You can feel the cup to know if it's hot. Which coffee is... since it's coffee. And coffee is served hot. If you're at home and make some coffee and spill it on yourself do you sue the people who made the coffee pot for allowing you to make it hot?

Now... if the cup they gave her fell apart 'cause it was broken then fine. But suing someone because you're an idiot and dropped your coffee on yourself doesn't make sense.

It's almost as dumb as that story I read of that lady who sued (and won) that department store because HER KID was running around like an idiot being disruptive and she tripped over him and got hurt. The fuck?

It's nice to see a story about a cop actually, ya know, STOPPING A CRIME as opposed to all those "don't cough on a cop" stories in here.

If the coffee maker heats the coffee up to a temperature that's hot enough to burn the surface of the sun then yeah I'd sue. Spilling coffee on yourself and getting the typical "ow, that shit's hot" is one thing, burning ones vagina completely off is a whole 'nother animal.

I agree it's nice to see a good story about a cop upholding the law and protecting citizens. People are so easy to point a finger at the wrongdoings; instead we should congratulate the good things more.