« "You're among friends, say what you really mean" | Main | Third graders plot attack on teacher »
Worker's Compensation decision regarding officer
If I were the officer, I'd be hacked at the City of Tucson. Here's the court opinion, which rejected the City's position.
Basically, an off-duty officer is riding his mountain bike, with friends in a rural area, at night, when he hears gunshots and suggests they leave. As they are doing so, the shooters arrive and open fire on them. (Apparently they were unarmed: not at all recommended in the desert). He takes cover and makes plans, but notices one of his friends has frozen and not taken cover. In the course of pushing him down he is shot and seriously injured. They memorize the license plate of a vehicle they encounter and suspect, and report it.
He applies for Worker's Comp, and the City fights the claim, arguing he was off-duty, and at the moment he was hit was trying to protect his friend, rather than apprehend the shooters. The City wins in front of an Admin Law Judge (who had the nerve to find that his conduct in protecting his friend "fell below the standard of care" for an officer), but the court reverses him, pointing out that Departmental policy is that an off-duty officer still has LEO responsibilities, including protecting the public.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
The friend is not a "member of the pub-lic"?
Tucson - another good city not to be a cop in.
what do you expect? the city attorney convinced the mayor he could save the city some money!
That's a joke, but the mayor should have stepped up and been the leader he was elected to be rather than letting this case anywhere near a courtroom.
The citizens of Tucson should reevaluate their support of him. If he's willing to sell out an off duty cop with the cajones to come under fire while trying to keep his friend from harm, you have to wonder who else he's willing to sell down the river.
dc
Unbelievable. If he'd been on duty and armed when the same situation came up, and he'd lost his weapon somehow, he'd have done exactly the same thing and it would have been the correct thing to do.
The City wins in front of an Admin Law Judge (who had the nerve to find that his conduct in protecting his friend "fell below the standard of care" for an officer), but the court reverses him, pointing out that Departmental policy is that an off-duty officer still has LEO responsibilities, including protecting the public.
I wonder if or how the state appeals court, federal circuit court, and SCOTUS rulings that LEOs have no legal obligation to risk life & limb in protection of individuals should have been factored in, or if they might be a factor on a further appeal.
If they are a factor on further appeal they would tend to lean toward the obscene position of the city.
That's what I meant. If the city appeals & uses those decisions, they'd effectively have to argue that not even on-duty cops have that responsibility/obligation/duty (legally, that is, not wanting to disrespect the outstanding moral duty self-imposed on many, many officers who willingly and selflessly place themselves in the line of fire for their fellow man - like the gentleman of the original story).
Where's the bargaining unit on this? This might be a good pro bono opportunity for a competent law corp.
Why don't they just fix the root of the problem and require off duty LEOs to be armed at all times? Then they could have just fired him.
One of the reasons I am no longer a police officer after more than 17 years on the job is precisely this sort of thing. This officer ought to carefully consider what would likely happen should he ever have to shoot a criminal, even if the shooting is totally justified and lawful. Most likely, the moron who run Tuscon would immediately throw him under the bus, so to speak.
I don't know so much about that, Mike. An officer shot a woman through her back window as she was driving away. He hit her in the back of the head. The facts were not in dispute, but he got away with it using the magic phrase "I feared for my life", even though witnesses and cameras proved he was in no danger at all. I think that was Tempe, though.
Straightarrow,
So because what you consider a bad shoot is justified by a grand jury, all cops are bad and you don't like them, they (well, we) all violate rights, etc. etc. etc.?
Give first-hand experiences or admit that you are merely spouting opinion, one that marginalizes you with the Mumia's of the world...
chunk (cop....who doesn't violate rights but certainly takes advantage of the fact that most don't know their rights)
The good Lord and anybody who will listen knows I am not a fan of cops. However, this treatment of this officer by the city is reprehensible. I wonder if being sold out by his masters has made him rethink his devotion to them when he is abusing citizens at their behest.