Originally Posted by GentleGrace

Ok, Skippy. No quotes. Better?

We interrupt this LEGAL FORUM to bring a brief, albiet necessary recap of the facts. Nothing but the facts, Ma'am. (I've always wanted to type that. No, really, I have. Seriously.)

The original poster said " Is it right what the first officers did? Should I just let this go?"

Lets all pause for a weighty moment. There.

Now, do tell.. what do you think she meant by this comment? Did you think she was asking if a thank you note was in order? A bouquet of fresh flowers, perhaps? A home baked goodie basket?

Obviously, her implicit question was "SHOULD I ATTEMPT TO HOLD THESE OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR WHICH I PERSONALLY DEEM UNACCEPTABLE"? (i.e. fancy way of saying SUE). Clearly that was the POINT of her posting. Agreed?

Your posting does not indicate to the original poster that you know any more than does she about the law regarding such an action. You ask her to "assume for a moment that the officers did do something wrong here"---my dear, she already HAS assumed the officers did something wrong. Did you READ her first posting?? The entire missive was based on her assumption that the POLICE did something wrong.

Obviously, her intent is to ask if she SHOULD sue. You asking her if that is her intent implies to anyone else reading that you are not aware that it is impossible for her to do so. If you were aware, why didn't you do what I did--provide her with an accurate LEGAL answer instead of inviting her to use bandwidth and her valuable time trying to brainstorm and come up with any legal ground she believes she has for a lawsuit, when in reality, there is none? That was the intent of my posting.

I can honestly say that is probably the first time since coming to this forum when I have had someone take offense at being offered correct legal information, regardless of if they already knew it or not. Furthermore, obviously, the original poster DOESN'T know this information. And this isn't a private message--it is a public posting and chances are, she WILL read it. And, you asking her if she was considering a lawsuit (after she obviously stated that she was) may reasonably indicate that you don't know that, in fact, as a matter of law, she cannot sue for negligence.

Not interested? Simply disregard. Already know the answer to the question? Answer it yourself. Disagree with my answer? Correct it.

When I offer information in this forum, I fully expect to be corrected when I am wrong, or at the least, have people add information to what I've provided, especially when I am in areas that are only marginally related to my specialization in criminal law. I was required to take classes in civil liability, although aside from the information learned there, I have no other expertise or personal experience with tort action against police officers. Having to review this information on torts and Section 1983 was helpful to me since I had, in fact, not reviewed it for close to two years. I actually enjoyed looking it up to make sure I was correct before answering. And, often times, while reviewing something I think I already know, I learn something new, or see something I missed before. Having a passion for learning means you are never offended at rereading, "re-considering", or "re-thinking" any information.

Do you like pancakes?