Man w/down syndrome dies

I

itsrequired

New Member
JoeRider said:
What is wrong about it? It is case law by the way. Second all it is saying is that it is harder to claim qualified immunity when the individual is injured (threshold). This also means that if you cuff someone and they are not injured, as a police officer it is easier to claim immunity even if the cop made a mistake.
Which they never do.

Bottom-line is that case law says more facts need to be presented to show just cause in support of qualified immunity when injury occurs.
Click to expand...

Wrong in that the "threshhold" for an officer to be granted qualified immunity is that they acted under the color of law, and they were not grossley negligent.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
itsrequired said:
Based on that description, I can think of situations where nobody would be charged with any crime.
Click to expand...

Ok, how about if a civilian cuffed this guy(for whatever reason), and he ended up dying while a civilian had him cuffed.

Then the ME ruled his death a homicide.
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Ok, how about if a civilian cuffed this guy(for whatever reason), and he ended up dying while a civilian had him cuffed.

Then the ME ruled his death a homicide.
Click to expand...

Does the civilian have the authority to cuff him, and was there a reason to do so? (For whatever reason could be a crime in itself.)
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
JoeRider said:
Wrong doing by someone that is an agent for the state (your claim representative of the people) is still accountable to the state (people). The States attorney is not representing the officers, they are representing the people and reviewing the officers actions to see if charges can be press against them.

people

n. the designation for the prosecuting government in a criminal trial, as in People v. Capone. Such a case may also be captioned State v. Davis or in federal prosecutions, United States v. Miller.
Click to expand...

I understand who the state represents, but that still doesn't answer the original queston of who exactly, that is related to this case has accused anyone of excessive force?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
itsrequired said:
You mean a situation similar to this?

Raging Teen Passenger Killed on Plane - ABC News

Well, you see the outcome. Your answer is no.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Attorney’s office, however, will not file criminal charges, saying Jonathan Burton’s Aug. 11 death was merely an act of self-defense by frightened passengers.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about some guy freaking out wanting to bring a plane down.

That would be grounds for reasonable and neccesary force.

The Castle Doctrine grants a presumption of reasonableness to those who might use deadly force against someone committing a crime.

There's been no indication Saylor's actions required deadly force, and if the citizens tried arguing that whatever they did to Saylor, they did not intend or believe it was likely to kill him, it would not be covered by self-defense.
 
Last edited:
I

itsrequired

New Member
Chris0nllyn said:
I'm not talking about some guy freaking out wanting to bring a plane down.

That would be grounds for reasonable and neccesary force.

The Castle Doctrine grants a presumption of reasonableness to those who might use deadly force against someone committing a crime.

There's been no indication Saylor's actions required deadly force, and if the citizens tried arguing that whatever they did to Saylor, they did not intend or believe it was likely to kill him, which would not be covered by self-defense.
Click to expand...

Okay, then for your scenario, a person who is trespassing in a person's business and won't leave. The store owner goest to ask them to leave, and they begin kicking the store owner. The store owner subdues them and handcuffs them. They die. I don't think there is a states attorney out there who would charge the store owner. Do you?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
itsrequired said:
Okay, then for your scenario, a person who is trespassing in a person's business and won't leave. The store owner goest to ask them to leave, and they begin kicking the store owner. The store owner subdues them and handcuffs them. They die. I don't think there is a states attorney out there who would charge the store owner. Do you?
Click to expand...

It happened on the store owner's property, right?
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
Chris0nllyn said:
It happened on the store owner's property, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. It started in the store owners property, but the guy kept assaulting the store owner and it spilled out onto the sidewalk where the assaulter was finally subdued and handcuffed. The store owner, once realizing the assaulter was in distress then attempted life saving measures to no avail.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
itsrequired said:
Yes. It started in the store owners property, but the guy kept assaulting the store owner and it spilled out onto the sidewalk where the assaulter was finally subdued and handcuffed. The store owner, once realizing the assaulter was in distress then attempted life saving measures to no avail.
Click to expand...

That's a good one.

Probably not, but I'd wonder if the "assaulter" had malintent in the first place.

I wonder how that would work....
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
JoeRider said:
If the store owner grab the individual first then the store owner would be in violation of assault. Anything that follows that would be on the store owner including possible manslaughter. Also, even with the castle doc. the store owner needs to have exhausted other options. Yes, I do think the states attorney would file. There are books of case law on this.

The one question is how much of a threat was the victim to the safety and life of those in the area. Reasonable actions always has a play here. Trespassing does not warrant an assault on someone.
Click to expand...

Now, to address your error again. A homeowner, or business owner, has the right to use reasonable force to eject someone from their property after that person fails to leave. Your ignorance to the law is amazing. So give me your address, I will come and set up shop in your back yard and tell me again how trespass doesn't warrant someone's removal.

If I were wrong about this, tell me why every bouncer in America is not arrested when they remove an unruly patron?
 
Hank

Hank

my war
JoeRider said:
I have been in a lawsuit over this. A person I ask to leave my property lunged that me, I pushed them away, then they hit me. I grab their arms, told them to leave and then filed charges. Guess what, assault charges were filed against me. I won my case and had my record expunged, but I did discover that the law in Maryland sucks for you protecting yourself or your property. I know this part of the law very well.

Why does it take 30 days to evict? If you tell someone to leave your property and they don't does not give you the right to assault.
Click to expand...

You're weird.
 
T

thatguy

New Member
Wirelessly posted

Hank said:
JoeRider said:
I have been in a lawsuit over this. A person I ask to leave my property lunged that me, I pushed them away, then they hit me. I grab their arms, told them to leave and then filed charges. Guess what, assault charges were filed against me. I won my case and had my record expunged, but I did discover that the law in Maryland sucks for you protecting yourself or your property. I know this part of the law very well.

Why does it take 30 days to evict? If you tell someone to leave your property and they don't does not give you the right to assault.
Click to expand...

You're weird.
Click to expand...

I am thinking the only truth in that whole statement is that penn has had charges filed against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top