Quote of the day—C.D. Michel

So the police are not obligated to help, can sue you if they do, and you get to pay for the privilege.

Such government shenanigans are part of the drive behind “stand your ground” laws. With the police often unable to help, or even openly hostile once they do, self-protection becomes a necessity. Legal protections like stand your ground laws are essential. They provide that in the absence of police assistance, or under the threat of police litigation, one can keep their life without losing their liberty.

C.D. Michel
September 2, 2013
When Police Sue You
[The back story is that a woman called the cops because of a man in her house (who she presumably knew) who had been using illegal recreational drugs for days. The cop shows up, gets beat up, shoots and kills the man, then sues the woman.

One has to wonder; Would the woman have been better off just shooting the man herself then calling the cops to take the trash out?—Joe]

14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—C.D. Michel

  1. The problem I have with some SYG laws is that innocent bystanders have no one to sue. At least, when the police shoot and miss, you can sue the city. You can’t do that with Joe Schmow who invokes SYG and says “Oops!” That part of these laws needs to be fixed.

  2. Slightly different theme here…

    Police have qualified immunity for their on the job screw ups, and yet want to sue citizens when they get hurt on said job.

    Sounds like they want it both ways. That’s simply not fair. Good enough for police then good enough for me.
    Allow me to sue police personally so as to weed put the bad or grant me some legal protections if I have to use lethal force…hence SYG.

    BTW, SYG is generally used as a legal defense against the very same scum that got shot doing illegal things to start with. That is the main reason and benefit.

    • They need to start heavily limiting qualified immunity. I’ve seen one too many stories where it’s used to defend against astonishing idiocy on the part of police/gov.

  3. Ubu,

    The task force report says: “it is not clear
    whether that immunity would apply
    “.

    Not clear. Your statements are of definite fact that immunity would apply. That is not the case. Not clear means that the people on the panel are not sure, not that it is a matter of legal record or case law.

  4. Unless you were unable to move the body yourself, why would you need to call the cops for help? What is the benefit they would offer?

    Suggestion: build an iPhone app that maps suitable dumpsters in a zip code.

  5. I just thought of something after reading the story.

    The cops are more than happy to land SWAT teams on your front lawn on the off chance you’re growing a random marijuana weed in the backyard… but they send ONE guy into a domestic violence situation where things can get dicey? Involving drugs?

Comments are closed.