If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NJ.com)   Man awarded $26,500 for getting shot while trying to run over a cop   (nj.com) divider line 43
    More: Stupid, Jersey City, Jersey City cop, photoJoshua Lopez  
•       •       •

6136 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 5:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-14 05:06:14 AM
Things like this give reason for an 'America' tag. Does this shiat even happen anywhere else?
 
2012-09-14 05:07:53 AM
and this is why we can't have nice things
 
2012-09-14 05:13:02 AM
Two words: tort reform.
 
2012-09-14 05:14:16 AM
He should have aimed for his head.
 
2012-09-14 05:22:47 AM

RehcamretsneF: Things like this give reason for an 'America' tag. Does this shiat even happen anywhere else?


.
.
Nope. Just in the Northeast and the West Coast.
 
2012-09-14 05:24:49 AM
Two sides to every story.

If it was 100% in favor of the cop I wouldnt see the city settling.

Fark cops.
 
2012-09-14 05:30:13 AM
FTA: drove at the uniformed officer, trapping him against the marked police cruiser

I would have shot him too.

I can understand the settlement, though, even if I think he doesn't deserve it. Better for the city to be out a paltry 26 grand than the millions they might end up paying out if it gets dragged through the system, both in settlements and fees.
 
2012-09-14 05:35:38 AM
In other news NJ is giving away free money
 
2012-09-14 05:37:07 AM

jmr61: Two sides to every story.

If it was 100% in favor of the cop I wouldnt see the city settling.

Fark cops.


Thank you. Everyone on here is so quick to judge and all we really hear are what the media and the prosecution tell us.
 
2012-09-14 05:56:38 AM
Sadly, its probably cheaper for the city to settle for $26k than to go to court and win. There's no way costs would be awarded against the litigant, so just doing the prep work and turning up would cost thousands of dollars.
 
2012-09-14 06:01:47 AM
It's weird how little I can find about this story now - the only articles for it seem to be on nj.com, I can't find any record of the kid's trial - he was definitely arraigned and bailed - then that's it.


Weird. People who get charged with the attempted murder of a police officer usually have their actions recorded in exquisite detail, even if only the exquisite detail of the testimony of the officer who was almost killed.

But for this one ... nothing. Arrest reports and bail on and around the 16th of February 2009, then stuff in the last week, and nothing in between.
 
2012-09-14 06:05:21 AM
Oh, but to be fair all the reports seem to indicate the guy wasn't really trying to run the cop down as much as he was trying, in a panic, to drive around the cop's car and drive away - he wasn't attempting murder, he was attempting 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS with shiatty driving skills in a shiatty Chevy Cobalt.

And I think we can all agree if you can shoot people like that without punishment, then the roads will run red with blood.
 
2012-09-14 06:43:33 AM

DataShade: It's weird how little I can find about this story now - the only articles for it seem to be on nj.com, I can't find any record of the kid's trial - he was definitely arraigned and bailed - then that's it.


Weird. People who get charged with the attempted murder of a police officer usually have their actions recorded in exquisite detail, even if only the exquisite detail of the testimony of the officer who was almost killed.

But for this one ... nothing. Arrest reports and bail on and around the 16th of February 2009, then stuff in the last week, and nothing in between.


I don't know for certain, but I suspect the fact that you're reading it online and not with a subscription may be the reason you're not seeing much follow-up. Newspapers have lost lots of staff.

Newspaper census shows newsrooms overall are down 13 percent of staff since that guy was arrested. Down more than 25 percent in the last decade.
 
2012-09-14 06:50:00 AM

Lonewolf45100: Two words: tort reform.


Tell me, please, what proposal in tort reform would have prevented this?
 
2012-09-14 06:51:18 AM
so proud of my coontry
I hope this guy votes early and often in the upcoming election.
It's his right, after all..to persue happiness
 
2012-09-14 06:53:34 AM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Lonewolf45100: Two words: tort reform.

Tell me, please, what proposal in tort reform would have prevented this?


.
.
Looser pays everyone's legal fees.
 
2012-09-14 07:12:49 AM
But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.
 
2012-09-14 07:18:14 AM

rattchett: But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.


But, but, I thought we wanted to be more like Europe?
 
2012-09-14 07:22:29 AM

david_gaithersburg: rattchett: But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.

But, but, I thought we wanted to be more like Europe?


I wouldn't say that. Sounds to me like you might be playing fast and lose with the facts there, buddy.
 
2012-09-14 07:44:05 AM

rattchett: david_gaithersburg: rattchett: But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.

But, but, I thought we wanted to be more like Europe?

I wouldn't say that. Sounds to me like you might be playing fast and lose with the facts there, buddy.

.
.

Google "uk loser pays legal fees" Because people like you will never believe anything I tell them.
 
2012-09-14 07:47:24 AM
Looser

Loser.

/I'm helping!
 
2012-09-14 08:12:22 AM

david_gaithersburg: rattchett: david_gaithersburg: rattchett: But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.

But, but, I thought we wanted to be more like Europe?

I wouldn't say that. Sounds to me like you might be playing fast and lose with the facts there, buddy.
.
.

Google "uk loser pays legal fees" Because people like you will never believe anything I tell them.


Actually I don't know I thing about it. I did Google the UK Procedure Rules. Part 44.3(2) does state that as a general rule the looser pays the winner's costs. However there is discretion on the part of the court. Also, the amount of costs ordered may not be solicitor/client costs (the entire legal cost incurred by the winner). In most jurisdictions solicitor/ client costs are rare and follow a vexatious proceeding and are used to punish a party for bad behavior or abuse of process. Instead the court relies on a tariff of costs or exercises its discretion. In any event, the costs awarded represent a small portion of the actual legal fees charged in a proceeding. Reasonable disbursements (photocopies, long distance calls, postage, etc.) are usually awarded as well.

I don't have a problem with a looser paying some costs. I don't agree with a looser paying all the costs, unless it can be shown that the looser's action is vexatious, an abuse of process, etc. Having to pay full costs if you loose is unfair and stifles legitimate claims. Who would sue GM, Monsanto, etc. if they thought if they loose they would have to pay the defendant's entire bill? That said, disburements on an action against a huge corporation would probably bankrupt an average person in any event.
 
2012-09-14 08:17:46 AM

Captain James T. Smirk: FTA: drove at the uniformed officer, trapping him against the marked police cruiser

I would have shot him too.

I can understand the settlement, though, even if I think he doesn't deserve it. Better for the city to be out a paltry 26 grand than the millions they might end up paying out if it gets dragged through the system, both in settlements and fees.


Note they didn't say "pinned", they say "trapped". So that means that he created an area within which the police officer was unable to remove himself? The cop was boxed in.

/sounds like he was shooting at an attempted escape, of a PARKING VIOLATION.
 
2012-09-14 08:38:08 AM

david_gaithersburg: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Lonewolf45100: Two words: tort reform.

Tell me, please, what proposal in tort reform would have prevented this?

.
.
Looser pays everyone's legal fees.


Already happens in a lot of cases. Ever heard of a counter suit? But for those that is not the case, or the counter sit gets tossed...... What do you do when the loser is not collectible? "I'm sorry, sir, you can't pay the insurance companies insane legal fees if you lose. No access to the American justice system for you."

Next brilliant idea?
 
2012-09-14 08:59:56 AM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: david_gaithersburg: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Lonewolf45100: Two words: tort reform.

Tell me, please, what proposal in tort reform would have prevented this?

.
.
Looser pays everyone's legal fees.

Already happens in a lot of cases. Ever heard of a counter suit? But for those that is not the case, or the counter sit gets tossed...... What do you do when the loser is not collectible? "I'm sorry, sir, you can't pay the insurance companies insane legal fees if you lose. No access to the American justice system for you."

Next brilliant idea?


We could just keep doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome.
 
2012-09-14 09:05:27 AM

Rich Cream: sounds like he was shooting at an attempted escape, of a PARKING VIOLATION.


...Because when I think of a car speeding at me during a traffic stop, I think "The driver is probably just kidding and doesn't mean me any harm".
That kids only reward for his stupidity should be escaping with his life.
 
2012-09-14 09:23:16 AM

way south: Rich Cream: sounds like he was shooting at an attempted escape, of a PARKING VIOLATION.

...Because when I think of a car speeding at me during a traffic stop, I think "The driver is probably just kidding and doesn't mean me any harm".
That kids only reward for his stupidity should be escaping with his life.



A little high-strung are we?
 
2012-09-14 09:59:54 AM
While the article does say the cop was in uniform, it doesn't say his car was marked. Lopez lived in another town at the time and might not have known the details of what a Jersey City police uniform looked like. Unless the car was marked (increasing the odds of an actual police officer to take notice of it, if it was fake) I don't find the self defense claim to be that farfetched.

We also don't know much about the demeanor of the cop. Had ne needlessly drawn his weapon, escalating the situation? Was he moving in an aggressive manner? Was he carrying a citation book at the time?
 
2012-09-14 10:12:52 AM
police man put on his uniform
Rehumanize yourself
 
2012-09-14 10:21:10 AM
Was his name Pat Brown?
 
2012-09-14 11:22:45 AM
I don't believe said officer. No "spiffy" tag?

/ Shenanigans!
 
2012-09-14 12:07:32 PM
Funny how farkers start to believe everything a cop says to justify a shooting once a lawsuit is involved. Also funny how the paper failed to include any allegations from the plaintiff.
 
2012-09-14 12:16:54 PM
Generally, shooting the driver won't make the car stop very quickly. If it's close enough that you think it'll hit you, it'll still hit you. Would have had more luck jumping to the side.
 
2012-09-14 02:25:10 PM
No person shall recover for loss or damages suffered while in the committing a crime.
I know it needs some tweaks, but is writing a law that hard?
 
2012-09-14 05:02:54 PM

stuffy: No person shall recover for loss or damages suffered while in the committing a crime.
I know it needs some tweaks, but is writing a law that hard?


At law the principle of equity requires clean hands. However people can settle for whatever they like. As is the case here.
 
2012-09-14 05:57:24 PM

rattchett: david_gaithersburg: rattchett: david_gaithersburg: rattchett: But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.

But, but, I thought we wanted to be more like Europe?

I wouldn't say that. Sounds to me like you might be playing fast and lose with the facts there, buddy.
.
.

Google "uk loser pays legal fees" Because people like you will never believe anything I tell them.

Actually I don't know I thing about it. I did Google the UK Procedure Rules. Part 44.3(2) does state that as a general rule the looser pays the winner's costs. However there is discretion on the part of the court. Also, the amount of costs ordered may not be solicitor/client costs (the entire legal cost incurred by the winner). In most jurisdictions solicitor/ client costs are rare and follow a vexatious proceeding and are used to punish a party for bad behavior or abuse of process. Instead the court relies on a tariff of costs or exercises its discretion. In any event, the costs awarded represent a small portion of the actual legal fees charged in a proceeding. Reasonable disbursements (photocopies, long distance calls, postage, etc.) are usually awarded as well.

I don't have a problem with a looser paying some costs. I don't agree with a looser paying all the costs, unless it can be shown that the looser's action is vexatious, an abuse of process, etc. Having to pay full costs if you loose is unfair and stifles legitimate claims. Who would sue GM, Monsanto, etc. if they thought if they loose they would have to pay the defendant's entire bill? That said, disburements on an action against a huge corporation would probably bankrupt an average person in any event.


"Looser" is an adjective, not a noun. "Loser" is a noun, however.

/Pet peeve.
 
2012-09-14 06:30:29 PM

SoxSweepAgain: rattchett: david_gaithersburg: rattchett: david_gaithersburg: rattchett: But what if the looser has no money at the outset of the action? The result will be that if you're poor or middle class, and there is any chance you might loose, don't sue because if you do loose you will loose everything in court costs.

Looser.

But, but, I thought we wanted to be more like Europe?

I wouldn't say that. Sounds to me like you might be playing fast and lose with the facts there, buddy.
.
.

Google "uk loser pays legal fees" Because people like you will never believe anything I tell them.

Actually I don't know I thing about it. I did Google the UK Procedure Rules. Part 44.3(2) does state that as a general rule the looser pays the winner's costs. However there is discretion on the part of the court. Also, the amount of costs ordered may not be solicitor/client costs (the entire legal cost incurred by the winner). In most jurisdictions solicitor/ client costs are rare and follow a vexatious proceeding and are used to punish a party for bad behavior or abuse of process. Instead the court relies on a tariff of costs or exercises its discretion. In any event, the costs awarded represent a small portion of the actual legal fees charged in a proceeding. Reasonable disbursements (photocopies, long distance calls, postage, etc.) are usually awarded as well.

I don't have a problem with a looser paying some costs. I don't agree with a looser paying all the costs, unless it can be shown that the looser's action is vexatious, an abuse of process, etc. Having to pay full costs if you loose is unfair and stifles legitimate claims. Who would sue GM, Monsanto, etc. if they thought if they loose they would have to pay the defendant's entire bill? That said, disburements on an action against a huge corporation would probably bankrupt an average person in any event.

"Looser" is an adjective, not a noun. "Loser" is a noun, however.

/Pet peeve.


Tis.
 
2012-09-14 10:53:23 PM

stucka: I don't know for certain, but I suspect the fact that you're reading it online and not with a subscription may be the reason you're not seeing much follow-up. Newspapers have lost lots of staff.

Newspaper census shows newsrooms overall are down 13 percent of staff since that guy was arrested. Down more than 25 percent in the last decade.



... sigh. Tell you what, go to your local library and skim through the microfiche records for Feb 15-Mar 15, 2009, and tell me how many times you see "Joshua Lopez." In three months when you're done with that and the comments are locked, you can just add your results to any old Fark thread, since I can go to Google and search [site:fark.com "stucka" "joshua lopez"] and find your post immediately thanks to Fark's searchbot friendly site policies.


The cost of a newspaper subscription doesn't cover the cost of printing it. It doesn't even cover what they pay their paper boys. It helps defray costs, but mostly it covers the administrative costs of tracking subscribers. The revenue for newspapers has always been advertisements, which is why websites that put up paywalls always wither and die (years ago, before TotalFark, when big papers started experimenting with paywalls, people submitted a lot of links to sub-only sites; it was the first time I saw Fark you, Subby as the top comment) - unless the paywall is as porous as the one the NYTimes set up. Which, honestly, you might not even know exists because it's probably never stopped you from clicking an NYT link.
 
2012-09-14 10:56:17 PM

david_gaithersburg: Looser pays everyone's legal fees.


Yes, because reconfiguring the justice system to explicitly favor the wealthy is certainly the way to fixing America's problems.
 
2012-09-14 11:04:16 PM

david_gaithersburg: Google "uk loser pays legal fees" Because people like you will never believe anything I tell them.


The UK also has a law that essentially allows rich people to buy gag orders to stop anyone from criticizing them. The UK also has one of the lowest burden of proof standards for libel/defamation in the west. The UK *also* allows for people with enough money to launch private criminal prosecutions - literally leasing the apparatus of the state to prosecute on the flimsiest of grounds.

I find it telling that you hear people say things like "Europe does some things better than the US does," and what captures your attention are the systems most like naked fascism.

Do you consider yourself a fairly standard example of American Conservatism?
 
2012-09-14 11:09:02 PM

Rich Cream: Note they didn't say "pinned", they say "trapped". So that means that he created an area within which the police officer was unable to remove himself? The cop was boxed in.

/sounds like he was shooting at an attempted escape, of a PARKING VIOLATION.



Yeah, I remembered reading about this when it happened, but didn't want to discuss what I remembered because I couldn't cite the articles - nj.com even has some that come up in search results but then the links don't go to the articles - but from what I remembered, the officer sustained no injuries and was only "pinned" insofar as he couldn't open the car door enough to get back inside to initiate pursuit so he shot at the kid.
 
2012-09-14 11:10:59 PM

way south: Rich Cream: sounds like he was shooting at an attempted escape, of a PARKING VIOLATION.

...Because when I think of a car speeding at me during a traffic stop, I think "The driver is probably just kidding and doesn't mean me any harm".
That kids only reward for his stupidity should be escaping with his life.


"Speeding" is a dramatization. The cop pulled in to block the kid from pulling away, so the kid backed up, tried to steer around the copcar and drive way. It's a Cobalt, he could get that thing up to, what, 12, 15 mph in a maneuver like that?
 
2012-09-14 11:12:44 PM

way south: That kids only reward for his stupidity should be escaping with his life.


"When Due Process fails, we really do live in a world of terror."
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report