Persons who are in the process of committing a felony should not have the right to collect damages. The heirs of those people should not be able to collect damages either. A woman was driving as much as 120 miles per hour trying to get away from police. She had a blood alcohol of more than twice the legal limit. She rammed two police cars. These facts are not in dispute. She was participating in a string of dangerous and illegal acts. At one point a police officer approached the car and he ended up shooting her to death because he thought she was trying to run him over.
These basic facts are not in dispute. The relatives are claiming that the city should pay them millions because the officer violated her civil rights by shooting her. The officer was not prosecuted for any wrong doing. In my opinion since she was participating in an ongoing criminal incident she and her heirs should not be entitled to any compensation, even if the officer violated her rights. Judges need to throw these cases out of court as they are simply an obvious attempt to shake down the city for money. If the woman was not committing violent felonies the police officer would not have shot her.
In my opinion, citizens have a duty to submit to the lawful authority of the police. When they fail to do that the police have a right to use reasonable force to make them submit. When a criminal is engaged in criminal acts, they should not be entitled to financial compensation if the officer who attempts to apprehend them does not do his job perfectly. Pursuits are dangerous and so are vehicle approaches. This officer was involved in both and as a result of the criminal actions of the suspect the officer felt the need to fire his weapon in the belief he was in mortal danger. That should not result in a financial windfall for the family of the suspect; that’s what the SGT Says.