Switch Theme:

And just when you thought you had no more respect left for Chicago police...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




WA, USA

Chicago cop suing the estate of a teen he killed for $10 million.

Spoiler:

Story highlights

A Chicago police officer shot dead Quintonio LeGrier, 19
The officer is suing the teen's estate, saying he was traumatized
The officer says he opened fire because he "reasonably believed" LeGrier would kill him

(CNN)The Chicago police officer who killed Quintonio LeGrier has filed a lawsuit against the teen's estate.

In a counterclaim filed last week, Officer Robert Rialmo alleges the 19-year-old whom he shot dead the day after Christmas assaulted him with a baseball bat and caused him to suffer trauma. He's seeking more than $10 million in punitive damages from LeGrier's estate.

Authorities have said LeGrier died from multiple gunshot wounds after the December 26 shooting. A neighbor, Bettie Jones, 55, was also killed. Police have described Jones as a victim who was "accidentally struck and tragically killed." They've described LeGrier as a "combative subject."
Father: No one helped my son after he was shot by cops

Father: No one helped my son after he was shot by cops 07:59

LeGrier's father and Jones' family have filed wrongful death lawsuits over the shooting.

The officer's lawsuit says Jones' death was LeGrier's fault, not his.

"The fact that LeGrier's actions had forced Officer Rialmo to end LeGrier's life, and to accidentally take the innocent life of Bettie Jones, has caused, and will continue to cause, Officer Rialmo to suffer extreme emotional trauma," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit provides the officer's moment-by-moment explanation of the incident, stating that the teen swung a baseball bat at him twice, barely missing both times.

The officer had his gun holstered and backed up as he shouted orders for LeGrier to drop the bat, the court document says. It was only after LeGrier continued his approach and ignored the officer's commands that Rialmo opened fire, according to the lawsuit.

Making a point

The shooting came as Chicago officials were in hot water for what critics have called a police culture of "shoot first and ask questions later." As details about the case emerged, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said there were "serious questions" about what happened and ordered changes in how city police officers are trained to handle calls involving people who may have mental health problems.

Chicago mayor: 'Painful and honest reckoning' needed after police shootings

Rialmo's lawsuit gives the officer's side in the controversial case, saying the officer opened fire after LeGrier "took a full swing" at his head, "missing it by inches."

"He told me that he felt the breeze of the bat passing in front of his face, it was that close," attorney Joel Brodsky told CNN affiliate WBBM-TV.

In a statement on Facebook, Brodsky said Rialmo "was taken aback by the speed in which the family of Mr. LeGrier rushed to file a lawsuit."

"He wants to make the point that having a relative killed in an officer-involved shooting is not the same thing as winning the lottery," Brodsky said. "Only the few cases of truly excessive use and abuse of force should be subject to legal actions."

Attorney for estate: Officer is 'trying to deflect'

Bill Foutris, an attorney who represents LeGrier's estate and the 19-year-old's father, said he had a good reason to file a lawsuit against the city quickly: preserving evidence.

"As a result of filing the lawsuit quickly we have gotten well over 40 DVDs of evidence, including police cams and police reports -- all things we would not have had if the suit was not filed when it was," he said. "It would have taken six months to get some of that evidence."

The officer, Foutris said, is trying to steer the conversation away from what happened that day.

"This counterclaim is an attempt to deflect from what the officer did," Foutris said. "He shot a teen four times in the back."

Differing accounts

Chicago's Independent Police Review Authority is investigating the shooting, which happened after officers responded to 911 calls from LeGrier and his father asking for help.

Rialmo's account of what happened contrasts with descriptions in the lawsuits filed by the LeGrier and Jones families.

Antonio LeGrier told CNN he called police after he heard his son banging with a baseball bat on his bedroom door. The father told the Chicago Sun-Times that his son had been prescribed medication for emotional problems.

"I wanted someone to try to help him with whatever he was going through," he said, "because I was not trained."

After he arrived at the apartment in response to a dispatch call of a domestic disturbance, Rialmo said Quintonio LeGrier swung a bat at his head multiple times when they were several feet apart. The lawsuit says LeGrier repeatedly ignored Rialmo's orders to drop the bat.

Eventually, the lawsuit says, "Officer Rialmo reasonably believed that if he did not use deadly force against LeGrier, that LeGrier would kill him."

The officer didn't see Jones, his attorney says "because the sight of her was blocked by Mr. LeGrier, who was standing over the officer about to crack his head open with a bat."



 Ouze wrote:

Afterward, Curran killed a guy in the parking lot with a trident.
 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






Ofcourse. Jesus. Is there no such thing as a tazer? A bat, while deadly, still has to be close enough to hit the guy. I doubt the cop had to go straight to lethal force.

Also, let me guess: white cop, black guy?

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Ofcourse. Jesus. Is there no such thing as a tazer? A bat, while deadly, still has to be close enough to hit the guy. I doubt the cop had to go straight to lethal force.

Devil's Advocate here:

Tasers are not reliable. They're a "one and done" thing. If you miss or the person is wearing thick layers of clothing--a taser is useless. Cops aren't trained to go straight to their tasers because of that. Additionally, the medical history of an individual can mean that tasers could still be lethal. People with heart defects have been known to die from tasers.

Most departments stress that tasers are for specific situations, firearms are for everything else. Most nonlethal measures just aren't effective. That, sadly, means that firearms are still the go-to in a situation where the officer or bystanders could be harmed by the individual in question.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

I get that the situation must really suck for the cop. I mean, that just kind of sucks. Belongs in the dictionary under the definition of suck.

But suing the family of the kid you shot, however reasonable you believed that to be, is just poor fething form bro.

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Part of being a policeman in the USA is the risk of having to shoot someone.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I do not really see a problem here.

Family trys to sue before kid hits the ground, cops get tired of people sueing cops before a week is up for money. Cop counteer sues for money.

Someone kills my kid I want them left in jail for life or death sentence..... So if he is let off you know the second one. Money doesnt get your kid back people need to stop trying to get millions off a death.

I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me. 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




WA, USA

And there's the 'blame the victim' checkbox for bingo.

 Ouze wrote:

Afterward, Curran killed a guy in the parking lot with a trident.
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Just put him on ignore, that's kind of his shtick - saying provocative things to fish for responses in the most incoherent manner possible.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of being a policeman in the USA is the risk of having to shoot someone.

The proper phrasing should be "Part of being a law enforcement officer is the risk of having to kill someone". That isn't exclusive to the US. There have been instances in the UK and Europe where LEOs have killed someone using stuff that is billed as "nonlethal" because of heart conditions or other factors.

In this instance, it's not an unreasonable lawsuit. The officer might have been prepared for taking the life of someone to protect themselves; but because of the situation an innocent bystander was killed.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Kanluwen wrote:
it's not an unreasonable lawsuit.


That doesn't mean it is a good idea, good press, or well timed. Pick any one of those three or a combination of them.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

I don't know whether or not the shooting is justified, but if you are traumatized from the shooting I am quite sure that's what your insurance is for. Even if it was 100% justified suing the victim's estate is a bit unbelievable in these circumstances.

The bystander's family, should they file a suit, would be a very different proposition.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 20:24:23


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of being a policeman in the USA is the risk of having to shoot someone.

The proper phrasing should be "Part of being a law enforcement officer is the risk of having to kill someone". That isn't exclusive to the US. There have been instances in the UK and Europe where LEOs have killed someone using stuff that is billed as "nonlethal" because of heart conditions or other factors.

In this instance, it's not an unreasonable lawsuit. The officer might have been prepared for taking the life of someone to protect themselves; but because of the situation an innocent bystander was killed.


True. It's a lot more likely in the US, though.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in ca
Plastictrees





Calgary, Alberta, Canada

"In a statement on Facebook, Brodsky said Rialmo "was taken aback by the speed in which the family of Mr. LeGrier rushed to file a lawsuit."

"He wants to make the point that having a relative killed in an officer-involved shooting is not the same thing as winning the lottery," Brodsky said. "Only the few cases of truly excessive use and abuse of force should be subject to legal actions." "

Wow. What a hero. Better teach that family a lesson.
Are the police unions done with their valiant crusade against Tarantino yet? I guess this is the next step in their campaign of eliminating any public good will.
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





We really need a "Why not tazer him?" bingo field. The amount of people who have zero idea of how they or, in general, defense works seems to be on a reliable level.

In regards to this case...what. I highly agree with other people in this thread stating that if you are a police officer, you know that one day, you might end up shooting someone. If you are afraid of that or cannot cope with such a situation, then you are not suited for the job and should quit / be fired.

   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 Sigvatr wrote:
We really need a "Why not tazer him?" bingo field. The amount of people who have zero idea of how they or, in general, defense works seems to be on a reliable level.

In regards to this case...what. I highly agree with other people in this thread stating that if you are a police officer, you know that one day, you might end up shooting someone. If you are afraid of that or cannot cope with such a situation, then you are not suited for the job and should quit / be fired.


I'm sorry, I'm just trying to think of other options other than handguns, especially given U.S. Law enforcement's pension for violence. Cops in the U.S. seem to always go for their sidearms, no matter the situation.

So excuse me. Feel free to enlighten people on how much more about tazers you know than the rest of us.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jreilly89 wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
We really need a "Why not tazer him?" bingo field. The amount of people who have zero idea of how they or, in general, defense works seems to be on a reliable level.

In regards to this case...what. I highly agree with other people in this thread stating that if you are a police officer, you know that one day, you might end up shooting someone. If you are afraid of that or cannot cope with such a situation, then you are not suited for the job and should quit / be fired.


I'm sorry, I'm just trying to think of other options other than handguns, especially given U.S. Law enforcement's pension for violence. Cops in the U.S. seem to always go for their sidearms, no matter the situation.

So excuse me. Feel free to enlighten people on how much more about tazers you know than the rest of us.
there was three deaths as a result from tazers that come to kind. Something to do with elviated heart rate and a tazing can cause seizure or heart attack.

Also I feel bad for the girl who got shot dont get me wrong, I just think jumping to money is a big problem. But shooting someone swinging a baseball bat at you seems like a fair raction. How many times would you let me swing a baseball bat at your head before you say... Hmmm I wonder how to stop him with out using a gun.

I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, the medical history of an individual can mean that tasers could still be lethal. People with heart defects have been known to die from tasers.

'Could be lethal if the target has a heart condition' sounds like slightly better odds though than shooting someone 4 times in the back, though....



That, sadly, means that firearms are still the go-to in a situation where the officer or bystanders could be harmed by the individual in question.

When you push for a confrontation, sure.

The general procedure over here when nobody is actually in any immediate danger (which is how it sounds in this case) is for police to keep their distance and just keep the suspect contained until they calm down enough to resolve the situation, or until they escalate it to a point where a violent response is actually necessary.

Obviously the linked story is lacking all of the details, but it sort of sounds like the police officer here just went charging in and pushed the situation from 'mentally ill person who was n odanger to anyone but themselves' to 'violent situation that required a violent response'.




And the very idea of a police officer suing the victim for 'trauma' is just absurd. As Ouze said, they should have insurance to cover the trauma induced by their job.

 
   
Made in ca
Plastictrees





Calgary, Alberta, Canada

You could leave?
Did he think anyone else in the apartment was in danger? Why wouldn't he have just left the apartment/ room and waited for someone who knew what they were doing or for more information on the situation?
It doesn't sound like he was being attacked per se, otherwise he would have been in a lot more trouble than he was.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

The headline on all of these seems a bit overdone.

The officer's "suit" is really a counter-claim to the LeGrier’s lawsuit.

I will say it's dastardly to claim "emotional trauma" within the counter-suit, but let's be honest here. The lawsuit was filed against officer... and when someone sues you, you're required to answer, and you are obviously intensely motivated to think through whether you have 'any' counter-claims.

In fact, if the defendant has ANY claims AT ALL against the plaintiff from that same incident, I'm pretty sure that he's forced to assert them now or lose them forever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 21:39:58


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

As a legal strategy, in a vacuum, this is actually pretty clever. I'm sure the cop can show that he was emotionally traumatized by the events, and it doesn't cost anything to make a counterclaim. A plausible counterclaim can encourage a plaintiff to settle for less money early on.

That being said... woo boy. Talk about putting your balls on the table. It's not a good move, and it doesn't help the growing rift between the police and the residents. Personally, it also furthers the narrative that modern cops are just, well, wusses. $10 million in emotional damage? When did we get to the point where a grown man, let alone a cop, would claim to be that upset?
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

The victim's family can sue for the emotional trauma of being sued for emotional trauma of being sued.

I wonder if tazers are more dangerous than guns?

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 whembly wrote:
In fact, if the defendant has ANY claims AT ALL against the plaintiff from that same incident, I'm pretty sure that he's forced to assert them now or lose them forever.


that's true in Ohio, and I'd imagine its true in Illinois, but the claim has to exist at the time of service. You can't "sit" on a claim, but if a claim later arises, even if from the same incident or set of facts, you can bring suit later.

They make some noise about how quickly the family brought suit, but frankly there's no reason to wait.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The victim's family can sue for the emotional trauma of being sued for emotional trauma of being sued.


You jest, but it's actually not the world's worst legal strategy. It's still pretty bad, as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress requires "outrageous" conduct that was intended to cause emotional distress. Filing a counterclaim, even if outrageous (which it probably isn't), still was intended to bring in money, not cause distress.


I wonder if tazers are more dangerous than guns?


Depends on the gun and your cardiac health, apparently.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 21:45:50


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Polonius wrote:
 whembly wrote:
In fact, if the defendant has ANY claims AT ALL against the plaintiff from that same incident, I'm pretty sure that he's forced to assert them now or lose them forever.


that's true in Ohio, and I'd imagine its true in Illinois, but the claim has to exist at the time of service. You can't "sit" on a claim, but if a claim later arises, even if from the same incident or set of facts, you can bring suit later.

I'm sure it's true in most states (if not at all), as the courts don't want to be dealing with future "what about this, yeah about this" sort of cases.

They make some noise about how quickly the family brought suit, but frankly there's no reason to wait.


Has the investigation formally been completed? I haven't seen that it's a close case...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 whembly wrote:
[quote=Polonius 679253 8438235 942d47064ab25116078779e73bd0085f.pn

They make some noise about how quickly the family brought suit, but frankly there's no reason to wait.


Has the investigation formally been completed? I haven't seen that it's a close case...


You don't need to wait on a criminal investigation to file a civil suit. In fact, given the... let's just say "deferential" treatment most criminal investigations against police receive, I would advise a hypothetical client to file sooner, rather than later, in order to force at least discovery in the civil suit.

Don't' forget, you really aren't suing the cop. You're suing the deeper pockets of the police department and city, both of which can afford to delay things to trial and beyond.
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Polonius wrote:
They make some noise about how quickly the family brought suit, but frankly there's no reason to wait.


Especially with a venue like Chicago, which has a well-established record of dragging ass on producing evidence sans a lawsuit. It was what, 2 years before they finally released the footage of that guy getting shot while walking away?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Ouze wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
They make some noise about how quickly the family brought suit, but frankly there's no reason to wait.


Especially with a venue like Chicago, which has a well-established record of dragging ass on producing evidence sans a lawsuit. It was what, 2 years before they finally released the footage of that guy getting shot while walking away?


I mean, if I'm the cops, I'd try to spin this as a family looking to cash in, that's just the smart play. They're playing to their own section of the cheap seats.

The family, of course, will spin this as an attempt to bring out the truth in a pattern of violence by the police against residents of color.

This whole drama will play out in the court of public opinion. The problem I see is that while plenty of people are strict law and order types that will back the police no matter what, keeping police violence in the news will, in the long run, only hurt their cause. There's a growing coalition that's extremely concerned about the near impunity of police to use lethal force, and it's all across the spectrum. You also increasingly have people questioning not just the motivations or biases of police, but their competency!
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Polonius wrote:
There's a growing coalition that's extremely concerned about the near impunity of police to use lethal force, and it's all across the spectrum. You also increasingly have people questioning not just the motivations or biases of police, but their competency!


That dovetails nicely into the recently announced decision not to charge any of the police who unloaded over a hundred rounds into a pickup truck containing 2 innocent women without any warning. Kind of amazing on several levels.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

Has the family of the neighbour shot because of this been compensated? Seems like they have the biggest grievance here.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Polonius wrote:
 whembly wrote:
[quote=Polonius 679253 8438235 942d47064ab25116078779e73bd0085f.pn

They make some noise about how quickly the family brought suit, but frankly there's no reason to wait.


Has the investigation formally been completed? I haven't seen that it's a close case...


You don't need to wait on a criminal investigation to file a civil suit. In fact, given the... let's just say "deferential" treatment most criminal investigations against police receive, I would advise a hypothetical client to file sooner, rather than later, in order to force at least discovery in the civil suit.

Don't' forget, you really aren't suing the cop. You're suing the deeper pockets of the police department and city, both of which can afford to delay things to trial and beyond.

Ah, good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
There's a growing coalition that's extremely concerned about the near impunity of police to use lethal force, and it's all across the spectrum. You also increasingly have people questioning not just the motivations or biases of police, but their competency!


That dovetails nicely into the recently announced decision not to charge any of the police who unloaded over a hundred rounds into a pickup truck containing 2 innocent women without any warning. Kind of amazing on several levels.

Jesus... I mean, seriously what.the.feth?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 23:42:44


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch


I think perhaps the scariest part of that story is that there are a bunch of cops running around with guns who shot a pickup truck more than a hundred times and only managed to hit the occupants three times.

Given the circumstances, that's ultimately a good thing for the women in the truck... but, seriously, were these police officers given any weapons training?

 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: