Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spunkets; harpseal
"The evidence here indicates that plaintiff's injuries were the direct result of his own contributory negligence.

From the evidence here, this Court finds that plaintiff heard the law enforcement officers at his door. [footnote 18] Rather than admitting the officers and submitting to a search of his premises, plaintiff chose to resist the lawful right of the agents to enter his apartment. Attempts were made to barricade the door and prevent entry by the officers. Even more imprudently, plaintiff and Mrs. McNeil armed themselves and prepared to shoot it out with the officers. After Agent Seals had entered the apartment and fired the first shot, plaintiff continued to point his loaded revolver at the other agents and officers who followed Seals into the room. Even after the first shot, plaintiff could have avoided injury to himself by taking cover and surrendering his weapon, or at the very least by not pointing his revolver at the other officers who entered the room after Agent Seals. His own negligent actions led directly to the serious injuries he suffered.

The credible evidence in this case does not support plaintiff's contention that he did not know that these men in his apartment were law enforcement officers. This Court finds that plaintiff did in fact hear the knocking and the loud announcement that federal officers were at the door with R search warrant. Although dressed in civilian clothes, a badge was prominently displayed by Agent Seals who was the first law enforcement officer to enter the apartment.

Whatever plaintiff was doing in the nude before the officers entered his apartment, he was not, as he claims, in the bathtub when they first knocked on his door. The evidence discloses, in the words of one witness, that he was "bone dry" when shot. More likely, plaintiff was not dressed when be first heard law enforcement officers at his door and in his haste to arm himself and try to keep them out, be did not take the time to clothe himself.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for the injuries he has sustained. Judgment is therefore entered in favor of the defendant, with costs."

Interesting that this disproves the myth posted by Harpseal
regarding this incident. Harpseal stated that it was the ATF who shot Ballew when it was actually a Montgomery County, Maryland Police Officer. The ATF agent's shot did not hit him.

Thanks for your research.

Regards: OTA


285 posted on 03/02/2003 8:45:27 AM PST by OTA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies ]


To: OTA
This particular court ruling leaves more unanswered questions than it does answers. Contributory negligence so that one can not collect in a suit against the government when there are some very distinct questions and when no evidence of a felony was found makes one very much question such a finding. You asked me to do the research when it was up to you and as for the "research" would you be kind enough to post where this research comes from? All we have at present is an unsourced quote. Without the full transcriy at least availabel from some other verifiable source we have a possibly biased conclusion.

If this is not a court transcript then we must question it further. Also what did the appeals court say?
286 posted on 03/02/2003 9:36:35 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson