Lady comes to defense of police officer shooting assailant, now getting sued.

[churchmouse]

Should picket in front of the ambulance chasers office of Blake R. Maislin llc. in Cincinnati, OH[/QUOT

Just not really sure what these people expect to get.

 

[actaeon277]

=churchmouse;7509967]

Should picket in front of the ambulance chasers office of Blake R. Maislin llc. in Cincinnati, OH[/QUOT

Just not really sure what these people expect to get.

$$$$

 

[MinuteManMike]

From Bill Jordan: "A man who will resist an officer with weapons has no respect for the rules by which decent people are governed. He is an outlaw who has no place in world society. His removal is completely justified, and should be accomplished dispassionately and without regret".

That's a garbage sentiment.

Police are sometimes flat-out wrong. And resistance to deadly force with deadly force can be 100% justified. Police are not God. They make mistakes all the time. Expecting free people to **** down their leg and just submit to unlawful actions is pathetic. It's no better just because the perp has a badge.

 

[Dead Duck]

That's a garbage sentiment.

Police are sometimes flat-out wrong. And resistance to deadly force with deadly force can be 100% justified. Police are not God. They make mistakes all the time. Expecting free people to **** down their leg and just submit to unlawful actions is pathetic. It's no better just because the perp has a badge.

So can we still count on your support?

https://www.gofundme.com/kystie039s-best-defense

 

[Mgderf]

NRA legal defense wants to speak with her attorney to offer assistance if needed. I forwarded him the info.

I am SO glad to see this.
I sincerely hope they can lend support and/or help.

 

[churchmouse]

That's a garbage sentiment.

Police are sometimes flat-out wrong. And resistance to deadly force with deadly force can be 100% justified. Police are not God. They make mistakes all the time. Expecting free people to **** down their leg and just submit to unlawful actions is pathetic. It's no better just because the perp has a badge.

So in the context of this situation you can still make this statement.
Yes the remark was a bit cold but in light of the situation I do see his point.

I can honestly say in my opinion that your statement was just as Garbage. Of course that is just my personal opinion.

Right or wrong to attack LEO is really not the smartest thing one could do

 

[Joniki]

That's a garbage sentiment.

Police are sometimes flat-out wrong. And resistance to deadly force with deadly force can be 100% justified. Police are not God. They make mistakes all the time. Expecting free people to **** down their leg and just submit to unlawful actions is pathetic. It's no better just because the perp has a badge.

I said nothing about pissing yourself. There is a right time and a wrong time to challenge a LEO. If you get into a confrontation with an officer on the side of a road, you will lose and lose badly.

 

[busted1200]

That's a garbage sentiment.

Police are sometimes flat-out wrong. And resistance to deadly force with deadly force can be 100% justified. Police are not God. They make mistakes all the time. Expecting free people to **** down their leg and just submit to unlawful actions is pathetic. It's no better just because the perp has a badge.

Dude just comply and then sue later if you think your in the right. That’s where people get Into trouble. They think they are right and usually not. I’m not saying they make mistakes, but when someone resists, the **** usually doesn’t have a good outcome. Seems you got a prejudice against the police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jaybus]

I don't disagree. But I'm the curious sort, and would like to know the specifics.

My gut reaction is that it was up close and fight or flight took over, in this case fight. It is likely that she didn't think it through at all in that instant when the attacker was grabbing the officer's sidearm, but just reacted and took the shot. Too much thinking would have been likely to cost the officer his life, and maybe hers too. Just my first thought. We may never know, but maybe some info will come out of the trial.

 

[CPT Nervous]

That's a garbage sentiment.

Police are sometimes flat-out wrong. And resistance to deadly force with deadly force can be 100% justified. Police are not God. They make mistakes all the time. Expecting free people to **** down their leg and just submit to unlawful actions is pathetic. It's no better just because the perp has a badge.

The place to fight is in the courtroom. Not on the street. As Joniki put it, "you will lose, and you will lose badly." Go ahead and fight a police officer if you think he's in the wrong. I promise you, you're going to have a very bad day. The only way you're not going to jail is if you leave with the coroner.

 

[fnpfan]

I blame liberal leaning judges and lawyers for this, In a common sense world these things would not happen, lawyers that would even prompt a case like this are scum and should be disbarred and asking me if I want fries with that!

 

[Restroyer]

I blame liberal leaning judges and lawyers for this, In a common sense world these things would not happen, lawyers that would even prompt a case like this are scum and should be disbarred and asking me if I want fries with that!

I agree with you on the lawyer part but the judge wants no part of this. It's a Civil case, not a criminal case. The Prosecutor refused to charge the woman and actually said that she was in the right for saving the officer. It's a Cincinnati lawyer. No Southeast Indiana lawyers would take the case to sue this woman. They went across the river and found Blake Maislin in Cincy who is an ambulance chaser.

 

[Rookie]

Can't the judge just flat out dismiss the case?

 

[Restroyer]

Can't the judge just flat out dismiss the case?

Judges very rarely just flat out dismiss civil cases. Ever hear of the woman who won a lot of money suing McDonald's cause she spilled hot coffee on herself? The news is filled with frivolous lawsuits every day. I live in the same general area this happened and I guarantee you no judge in this area wants this case but they aren't likely to dismiss it either. Jury will hear the civil case and I don't see how the bad guy's family will win anything.

 

[busted1200]

Judges very rarely just flat out dismiss civil cases. Ever hear of the woman who won a lot of money suing McDonald's cause she spilled hot coffee on herself? The news is filled with frivolous lawsuits every day. I live in the same general area this happened and I guarantee you no judge in this area wants this case but they aren't likely to dismiss it either. Jury will hear the civil case and I don't see how the bad guy's family will win anything.

If this family wins anything, I will spill hot coffee on me. Then sue the family claiming the verdict was so shocking it caused a emotional response and loss of muscle retention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[tcecil88]

I got this back from Senator Perfect's office. I don't know if it will go anywhere, but hopefully it will.


[FONT=&amp]Good afternoon,[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]My name is Michael Conway and I am the Legislative Assistant for Senator Perfect. We are currently looking into this matter and I will be in touch when we have more information. Thank you for reaching out and thank you for your service.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Respectfully,[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Michael J. Conway[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Legislative Assistant[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Senator Rick Niemeyer[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Senator Chip Perfect[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]317-232-9489[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Michael.Conway@iga.in.gov
[/FONT]

 

[busted1200]

$86,000+. Lets keep this going!

 

[churchmouse]

Bump

 

[HoughMade]

Can't the judge just flat out dismiss the case?

Not (generally) on his own. We have an adversarial system meaning that one side has to make the motion. So what would the motion be based on? Well, you may have the people involved execute affidavits about what happened and if that meets the criteria for dismissal....but wait, then the party who brought the suit may (likely) want to depose the people who provided the affidavits....and the person who brought the lawsuit may provide his own affidavit contradicting what the other people said...and then that's what juries are for.

We don't want judges making sua sponte decisions about whether a lawsuit holds water or not in the absence of admissible evidence (unless the pleadings themselves establish no liability, and even then the judge will not do it on his own). Then, even with admissible evidence, we don't want judges making a decision about dismissal without giving the other side a chance to respond. And, unless everyone agrees, we do not want want judges usurping the role of juries and deciding who to believe- we have the 7th Am. for a reason.

 

[Alamo]

Not (generally) on his own. We have an adversarial system meaning that one side has to make the motion. So what would the motion be based on? Well, you may have the people involved execute affidavits about what happened and if that meets the criteria for dismissal....but wait, then the party who brought the suit may (likely) want to depose the people who provided the affidavits....and the person who brought the lawsuit may provide his own affidavit contradicting what the other people said...and then that's what juries are for.

We don't want judges making sua sponte decisions about whether a lawsuit holds water or not in the absence of admissible evidence (unless the pleadings themselves establish no liability, and even then the judge will not do it on his own). Then, even with admissible evidence, we don't want judges making a decision about dismissal without giving the other side a chance to respond. And, unless everyone agrees, we do not want want judges usurping the role of juries and deciding who to believe- we have the 7th Am. for a reason.

This would be weller and gooder if loser paid.