Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Charleston Post and Courier)   Woman sues police for estranged husband shooting her. She may have a case since she was in their protective custody...and he fired his gun from her house's attic   (postandcourier.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, West Ashley, protective custody  
•       •       •

5289 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Sep 2012 at 10:35 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



20 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-28 10:39:47 AM  
Police have no duty to protect individual citizens. This has been ruled on in courts already. She's shiat outta luck me thinks....
 
2012-09-28 10:41:37 AM  
 
2012-09-28 10:43:14 AM  
That story is kind of Stephen King crazy.
 
2012-09-28 10:43:29 AM  
I have pop-pop in the attic.
 
2012-09-28 10:43:30 AM  
Seems like being married to a psycho for 20+ years is more her fault than that of the police department. The guy was hiding for three days under the insulation? That must have been comfortable. Not really hard to guess how the Police didn't find him.
 
2012-09-28 10:55:06 AM  
No security is perfect. I wouldn't award her anything.
 
2012-09-28 10:57:32 AM  
Ceiling husband is watching you.
 
2012-09-28 11:05:23 AM  
Melissity?
 
2012-09-28 11:26:14 AM  
Wait, was he on the run, or what? If that's the case, then it's not really the PD's fault (since they could not find him at all). If he straight up killed someone, presumably he was on the run, right? Maybe she should have checked her house since there was a psycho killer out to get her.
 
2012-09-28 11:28:42 AM  
Named your daughter Melissity? That's a shootin' right there.
 
2012-09-28 11:36:33 AM  

tetsoushima: I have pop-pop in the attic.


The fact that you call it pop-pop tells me you're not old enough.
 
2012-09-28 11:42:58 AM  

tetsoushima: I have pop-pop in the attic.


Stopped by for an Arrested Development reference, leaving satisfied.
 
2012-09-28 12:18:42 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Police have no duty to protect individual citizens. This has been ruled on in courts already. She's shiat outta luck me thinks....


I wonder how that applies to protective custody. Do they still have no duty to protect an individual after they specifically state that they are going to protect that individual?
 
2012-09-28 12:32:43 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Mr.BobDobalita: Police have no duty to protect individual citizens. This has been ruled on in courts already. She's shiat outta luck me thinks....

I wonder how that applies to protective custody. Do they still have no duty to protect an individual after they specifically state that they are going to protect that individual?


Yup. Police can not, under any circumstances, be found legally liabile because they suck at protecting people.
 
2012-09-28 12:51:56 PM  

Geotpf: Noticeably F.A.T.: Mr.BobDobalita: Police have no duty to protect individual citizens. This has been ruled on in courts already. She's shiat outta luck me thinks....

I wonder how that applies to protective custody. Do they still have no duty to protect an individual after they specifically state that they are going to protect that individual?

Yup. Police can not, under any circumstances, be found legally liabile because they suck at protecting people.


Actually, reading the above links, it looks like that if there's a "special relationship" with the victim, the police could be found liabile, although it also looks like the police are basically never found to have such a relationship.
 
2012-09-28 12:57:49 PM  
The husband has now gone on to consider himself gender-neutral/asexual, believes that other languages contain only the present tense, and has colluded with a local contractor and cement mixer to poison his mother by adding radioactive particle to a new fireplace.
www.listemageren.dk

/or something like that.
 
2012-09-28 01:22:44 PM  
#1 rule of personal security is never rely on anyone else to protect you.
#2 rule of personal security is anything around you may be used as a weapon for or against you.
#3 rule is always check the farking attic, dipshait.
 
2012-09-28 01:25:09 PM  

Geotpf: Geotpf: Noticeably F.A.T.: Mr.BobDobalita: Police have no duty to protect individual citizens. This has been ruled on in courts already. She's shiat outta luck me thinks....

I wonder how that applies to protective custody. Do they still have no duty to protect an individual after they specifically state that they are going to protect that individual?

Yup. Police can not, under any circumstances, be found legally liabile because they suck at protecting people.

Actually, reading the above links, it looks like that if there's a "special relationship" with the victim, the police could be found liabile, although it also looks like the police are basically never found to have such a relationship.


The protective custody ended when she moved back into her home.
 
2012-09-28 03:41:28 PM  
She may still convince a jury. That means it would go all the way up to the supremes (they wouldn't hear the case, but it would have to go that far to get out of paying.)

They might just cut her a check and save themselves some time.

I say go for it, sister. And use the money to party it up with that ex. After all, you guys are totally meant to be together.
 
2012-09-28 08:06:15 PM  
We traced the call. It's coming from inside the house. GET OUT!!!
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report