I Guess It Was Only A Matter Of Time
Now I don’t really know why I’m surprised by this, but today we hear that one of the parents of the three N.J. boys who died in the trunk of the family car has hired a lawyer. According to statements, another of the parents have said they haven’t thought about suing (which is really not the same thing as saying they won’t sue, is it?). The lawyer was hired on the basis of the fact that autopsy reports indicate that the boys likely died between 13 and 30 hours after climbing in the trunk. Although experts say they probably passed out after an hour or two, and although the parents looked for them for at least 3 hours before calling the police, the lawyer has stated that the blame for the deaths rests “squarely on the shoulders of the police.”
I stand by my previous comments in “Who’s Responsible for Your Life, Anyway?” How can this be the fault of the police? The parents themselves did not see fit to look in the trunk of their own car. The parents, who knew the trunk was defective, did not tell the police that they knew (which has been factually established) that at least one of the boys had previously climbed into that trunk. And yet the investigation into why the police failed to look is continuing. The report is expected to be released next week. It should make for an interesting read. How can it possibly take 1 month to investigate why police “failed” to look in a spot the parents quite obviously did not consider important?
It defies any reasonable definition of common sense to say that the police are at fault simply because death did not occur until after the police search started. This argument is as imbecilic as it is dangerous. Here is the problem. Finding in favor of the parents in this case would set the precedent that any injury taking place after the police are involved is the fault of the police. Thus, if a victim of any crime were to die after the police were called to investigate, the relatives of the victim could sue the police for the death. The police force will be mired in frivolous litigation, and communities will be unable to cope with the financial burden of the liabilities. Services will be cut and we will all suffer as a direct consequence of this type of lawsuit.
If, as one mother said, “suing anybody will not bring them back,” why hire a lawyer in the first place? Not too many stereotypes of lawyers include the attribute “altruistic.” Hiring a lawyer is the first step to filing a lawsuit. Because it is often difficult for the average person to separate emotion from logic, juries are far more likely to side with the parents than with a governmental organization. Knowing this, the city is likely to seek an out of court settlement. Inevitably, the parents will claim “it’s not about the money.” If it’s not about the money, why bother with the lawyer?
The police already face a very difficult task. They are constantly accused of not using enough force when a criminal gets away and simultaneously accused of using too much force when they capture the criminal. They are sued for illegal search and seizure when they want to look for contraband in school lockers and then sued when a student goes on a shooting rampage.
The police are not all-knowing, all-seeing mind readers. Their investigation is only as good as the information they are given. A reasonable person would not expect the local police to know the history of his car’s trunk (if they did, someone would probably sue them for a civil rights violation). In any other crime, if a witness withholds material evidence, the witness can be charged as an accessory. If the parents want to insist this is a crime and not a horrible accident, why are we accusing the police of these deaths, instead of throwing the parents in jail?
I stand by my previous comments in “Who’s Responsible for Your Life, Anyway?” How can this be the fault of the police? The parents themselves did not see fit to look in the trunk of their own car. The parents, who knew the trunk was defective, did not tell the police that they knew (which has been factually established) that at least one of the boys had previously climbed into that trunk. And yet the investigation into why the police failed to look is continuing. The report is expected to be released next week. It should make for an interesting read. How can it possibly take 1 month to investigate why police “failed” to look in a spot the parents quite obviously did not consider important?
It defies any reasonable definition of common sense to say that the police are at fault simply because death did not occur until after the police search started. This argument is as imbecilic as it is dangerous. Here is the problem. Finding in favor of the parents in this case would set the precedent that any injury taking place after the police are involved is the fault of the police. Thus, if a victim of any crime were to die after the police were called to investigate, the relatives of the victim could sue the police for the death. The police force will be mired in frivolous litigation, and communities will be unable to cope with the financial burden of the liabilities. Services will be cut and we will all suffer as a direct consequence of this type of lawsuit.
If, as one mother said, “suing anybody will not bring them back,” why hire a lawyer in the first place? Not too many stereotypes of lawyers include the attribute “altruistic.” Hiring a lawyer is the first step to filing a lawsuit. Because it is often difficult for the average person to separate emotion from logic, juries are far more likely to side with the parents than with a governmental organization. Knowing this, the city is likely to seek an out of court settlement. Inevitably, the parents will claim “it’s not about the money.” If it’s not about the money, why bother with the lawyer?
The police already face a very difficult task. They are constantly accused of not using enough force when a criminal gets away and simultaneously accused of using too much force when they capture the criminal. They are sued for illegal search and seizure when they want to look for contraband in school lockers and then sued when a student goes on a shooting rampage.
The police are not all-knowing, all-seeing mind readers. Their investigation is only as good as the information they are given. A reasonable person would not expect the local police to know the history of his car’s trunk (if they did, someone would probably sue them for a civil rights violation). In any other crime, if a witness withholds material evidence, the witness can be charged as an accessory. If the parents want to insist this is a crime and not a horrible accident, why are we accusing the police of these deaths, instead of throwing the parents in jail?
posted by exsubdriver at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home