Houston family calls 911 when dad has psychotic episode; now sued by the deputy who killed him


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Is the cop alright?
Has he received enough taxpayer-funded therapy for his trauma?
Should we give him another four week paid vacation?


#3

I'm thinking if you don't want to be put in harm's way in a dangerous profession like law enforcement, perhaps you should go be a florist, librarian or greeter at Wal-Mart.


#4

And this is why children are murdered every day. Deputy jackass... from the bottom of my heart: FUCK YOU!!!


#5

April Fools!!!

Wait, WHAT?!?!


#6

Probably doesn't have the advanced degrees it takes to be a librarian these days.
Or the customer service skills to be a florist.


#7

I used to live in a very low crime part of the USA. A few years ago, some high school dropouts kidnapped and killed the local Wal Mart greeter. True story; no April Fools.


#8

I'm going to sue you for telling me this story. You are responsible for me checking the internet for information on the standards of reality in 2014.


#9

If I'm buying this story, shouldn't the cop sue the paramedic? That's who called. So now if we need to dial 911, we have to have ESP in order to fully describe what is going to happen?


#10

Like I've pointed out before - cops are under no legal obligation to protect you.

I could see this cops point if he was called into a sort of ambush situation. But it looks like both the 911 call and the call from the EMT said that this guy was violent and dangerous.

It makes me wonder if this is a preemptive strike of sorts. Like he feared the family would sue for wrongful death or unnecessary force, and by him suing first he hopes to protect himself legally.


#11

The cop, Brady Pullen, was already brought in front of a grand jury for the murder killing of the man and he was cleared. This is clearly a mean-spirited cruel vengeance based lawsuit.

Brady Pullen seems to want to punish the family and hey, he might make some free money. No sign of a conscience or any human decency...
The attorney, an ex-cop himself, always finishes a job he's paid for, just like an olde-timey gunslinger.
The sheriff is probably just thinking, ' Hey if this lawsuit prevents poor people from calling the cops it's less work for us!'


#12

Shouldn't the family be suing the officer for using excessive force against their husband and father? He was shot TEN times. I didn't read anything in the article about the deceased man being armed. Surely using the taser would have been more than enough to subdue him if necessary?


#13

The article states that a grand jury declined to indict him. If it went before a grand jury, surely he was aware of it. He likely blames the victim for the fact that the matter was even investigated, and this is his retaliation. This guy is probably one of those demigod cops that believes anything other than immediate obedience and deference is a sin deserving of punishment. Judging by the behavior of cops in the US these days, it's a common belief.


#14

So first militarily-trained police can shoot you with impunity. Now they can then sue your family. I love America.


#15

I hope the police department remembers to charge the family for the cost of the bullets, as in other parts of the world. We wouldn't want his children to grow up thinking that lead is free.


#16

Sound like the paramedic was the one who failed to describe the threat, and who should have had better training to deal with it…if anyone gets sued, it should be him!


#17

The family should sue the paramedic, and the company that employed him, and failed to train him properly.


#18

Possible, it's hard to tell wtf he's thinking. But I'd do believe just because the grand jury didn't find him at fault, doesn't mean that he is immune to a civil suit. Though I could be wrong on that, maybe they have a built in protection.


#19

I didn't know that, are you sure? Sorry, I know you mention that you've discussed this in the past, but could you briefly bring me up to speed?

I have a hard time imagining that they are not obligated to enforce the laws against murder, assault, rape, reckless endangerment, and other physical forms of harm. If they aren't then I don't really see the value in having them at all. That is the only really good justification for law enforcement, to keep us safe. Are you certain they aren't legally obligated to try and prevent one of those more serious crimes in progress?

"To Serve and Protect" is the motto of most police forces, it would be a shame if they weren't required to do either. If you are correct then this is an eye opener for me.


#20

The legal theory that the cop is trying to advance here, doesn't hold up. He has no cause of action with the household, at worst he could sue the city. Unless the Judge is as corrupt as the cop (and the department that allowed this to move forward), he'll have to throw it out.