When Police Sue The Victims: Justice Gone Wild

justicia630[1]By: Chaplain Robert Poynter, TLB Contributor.

What is the world coming to? Right here in my part of the world, (Houston, Texas) Police are now suing 911 victims for failure to explain to them the seriousness of the 911 call. What? Let me lay it out for you. This is from an email I got and has been verified.

Here’s the scenario as reported:

An officer in a Houston suburb responded to a 9-1-1 call from a woman concerning a man in her house (who she presumably knew). This situation was worse than most because the man in question had apparently been using “bath salts” – a street drug with effects similar to cocaine and amphetamines – for several days. I have to hand it to the druggie, that’s a world class binge on toxic chemicals.

Police have dangerous jobs, and walking into a domestic disturbance situation unprepared to shoot is considered bad form, because even without the benefit of overdose levels of uppers, such tense situations can turn violent. One might think that to a well-trained officer, an emergency call from a woman complaining about the man in her house would be warning enough to expect the worse. Evidently Katy, Texas is such an odd ball suburb that such calls are either mild or all too routine.

Not this time. Naturally, when this dope-crazed man met an intruding police officer, he did not act rationally. He delivered a mid-level beat down which broke the officer’s nose, gave him a concussion as well as some bruises.

Now this officer is suing the woman who made the 9-1-1 call. He couldn’t sue his attacker because the druggie was justifiably shot and killed when he reached for the officer’s weapon, presumably after the beating began.

The officer contends that the woman who phoned authorities failed to adequately warn of the dangerous situation the officer would walk into (e.g., the drug-crazed violent prone nut job at the domestic violent call).

Ponder this for a moment. The Supreme Court says the police are not obligated to protect a woman from an agitated man in her home. But the same officer can sue her if he is injured walking into a situation that through common police training wisdom is defined as dangerous. Such women are in a no-win situation.

They run a risk of depending on police at all, yet have to deal with potential violence regardless. No wonder women are the fastest growing gun owner demographic in America – the police and courts make armed self-defense the least risky alternative.

supremecourt[1]Remember, Not only do police have no legal duty to protect you. The Supreme Court ruled years ago, that local police are under no legal obligation to provide you, as an individual – services of any kind including protecting you from violent attackers (Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department). 

This one ruling is ample justification for anyone to obtain a firearm, because you are the only person certain to be at the scene of the crime when someone attacks you. The police will likely not be there at all, or only after the fact … to take a report.

Now, if they do make it there while the scene is hot, they might take you to court?

When asked about this, we were told that, The Harris County Sheriff’s department lawyers are handling the case on behalf of the officer. Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia said “We’re allowing our legal staff to manage this case and we’ll see where it takes us, The woman in question, after calling an emergency line for help, now has the weight of the entire county descending upon her, using tax money to manage the case. Even so, the case may not survive because a jury may well find that an officer should know domestic disturbances are to be treated with caution (as all the officers I know do). A judge might well rule that violence is part of the officer’s job description and thus an occupational hazard.

So the police are not obligated to help, can sue you if they do, and you get to pay for the privilege. What alternative is left for the private citizen?

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.

images-4[1]Most importantly, we all have learned two valuable lessons: First, though police are our friends, the strain between civilians and the police is growing, be it through litigation, militarization of local police, the cultural war against gun owners, increasingly criminalization of non-violent gun possession through incomprehensible gun laws, or budget cuts. All of this escalates the need and desire for private gun ownership.

The second lesson we learned is not to take bath salts for days on end. It makes you cranky.

When I found this out I thought the public needed to know, we’re in trouble and there is no one out there that will help you if this kind of thing is allowed to stand. Police officers suing the public, that is supposed to rely on them, can’t be tolerated. This is scary if the law enforcement community is allowed to do this and sets precedence on how we protect ourselves in the future. Just thought you ought to know.

1 Comment on When Police Sue The Victims: Justice Gone Wild

  1. So, did the cop pistol whip himself? Did the suspect beat him up? Whatever! The cop has no right to sue.
    Courts have ruled that the police DO NOT have to protect We, The People; so the cop did not even have to go into the house. He chose to. (Pullen told his lawyer as soon as he went through the door…) Therefore, he put himself in danger. Case closed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.