mex and h20, I hope you guys are right.

 

Either way, I agree with mex that this really isn't one of the important issues.

I'm telling you guys, he had every reason to stop the drivers coming from that party. He briefly stopped the driver before and asked if he was drinking. Driver said no and was on his way. He would have done the same here, and if he suspected her of drinking while operating a motor vehicle, he had probable cause to detain her and conduct a field sobriety test. The 1983 Civil Rights argument is a stretch and, I believe, meant to get this into Federal Court.

 

The real issue is whether he threw himself on the car unreasonably. That is where the whole crux of this thing will be won or lost. Better believe that that anxiety medication dosage will come into play. It plays into the Why of ending up on the car.

 

This.

 

First bolded. Agreed (from what I've read). Don't really know why it's even an issue.

 

Agree with mexitucky's reasoning that the Civil Rights Act argument is to get it into Federal court.

 

To the underlined: from everything I've read, the dosage was well within the therapeutic range and would have just been metabolites that hadn't eliminated from his body, not anything that was "going through his system" at the time per se. Again, I could be mistaken about that, but I'm thinking that's what I'd read awhile back and I haven't seen anything to the contrary come out. Of course, it will be brought up and will have to be dealt with, but I don't think it's something that is just a straight hand grenade thrown in there.

One of the arguments being made by Ramsey's attorney is that there was no legal basis for Brockman to stop the car.

 

Is he correct?

 

Given, I think that it will be a very tough sell.

Just playing devil's advocate, if that is the rationale then police officers everywhere should be setting up checkpoints outside of every bar.

 

Not the same. #1 , the drivers leaving a bar wouldn't be presumed to be underage. #2 , why were they even at the bar? Same reasons they were at the field party? #3 , if they were trespassing, then the patrons of a bar aren't trespassing (also, a bar is more likely to have other businesses, roadways, etc. around it where people would be more likely to be there for legitimate purposes. I understand what you are saying, but I'm not exactly sure that the two equate.

 

Obviously, it would be better if the driver were swerving or showing some signs of impairment. I'm not really sure that given the way things turned out, that the officer is going to have as tough of a time showing this as you seem to think.

 

If nothing else, why not just say it was a temporary sobriety checkpoint? I'm not as familiar with Kentucky law as Texas' obviously, but I'd think that'd be enough based on what I know (I may be wrong about that though).

Without access to case law, here is my legal argument. Flawed and incomplete so take it with a grain of salt.

Under Terry, temporary detentions are permitted where there is merely a REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime has occured or is about to occur. An assortment of crimes happened at this party namely trespassing and under-aged drinking. As the people left the party, there was a reasonable suspicion that some of the drivers would be intoxicated as there had been drugs and alcohol there, obviously resulting in driving while intoxicated. Since, again, the suspicion was reasonable he had a right to stop the car.

 

The 1983 argument against the officer, in order to recover punitives, requires the plaintiff to show that the Deputy was motivated by an evil motive or intent, or that it involved reckless or callous indiference to the federally protected rights of others.

 

That isn't as much of a stretch as I originally said, when it comes to the action of shooting and ultimately killing her. If he jumped on that hood for no reason other than to play super cop and put himself in a position of life or death, or if he didn't give her a chance to stop the car after reacting to the shock of having someone jump on her hood, then he could be found guilty of involved reckless or callous indifference. I don't believe that he jumped on that hood and shot out of some preformed evil motive.

 

This is why the case hinges on why he ended up on that hood. Jump and you have a 1983 action and wrongful death. If he was forced on the hood, then you have a guy basically fighting for his well being.

 

As for the case against the city and 1983, I'll let other people write about that.

 

Here is a paper covering 1983 actions in the state of Kentucky http://gmfm-law.com/wp-content/themes/gmfm/pdfs/1983_claims_and_defenses.pdf

 

This doesn't

 

Your first part is exactly why I said the same. I think Guru is saying what law could you have identified having been broken when it became a lethal force situation or is it she simply failed to comply with a lawful order. Example: Most departments won't let you taze someone just because they run. You have to have proof or knowledge of a crime having been committed. Haven't read the next few posts yet and I'm sure I'm being redundant right about now.

I think he's covered under Terry v. Ohio.

 

 

 

Based on the facts he had at the time, I think he had enough to check drivers leaving that party. He knew there was underage drinking going on there based on the people walking down the road, drunk. That alone gives him enough reasonable suspicion to investigate it further. Like mex said, he was only briefly detaining people who he did not believe was DUI. He didn't ask the first driver for any identification, just checked him and sent him on his way.

 

That's why I love BGP. Lots of smart folks on here. I feel like someone else mentioned Terry vs Ohio.

Anybody follow the facebook page? They released a bunch of evidence in the criminal case the other day. Not very good for the Ramsey family and their civil case.

Anybody follow the facebook page? They released a bunch of evidence in the criminal case the other day. Not very good for the Ramsey family and their civil case.

 

What is it under?

What is it under?

 

I Support Deputy Brockman

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/Deputybrockman

I don't think Ramsey's family will win this case, with that said it won't surprise me if the Sheriff Dept. doesn't settle out of court.

Just a hunch.

Did the Ramsey's change lawyers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3hBr0QUjOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3hBr0QUjOs

 

Here is the video from uk#1fan's post, embedded.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3hBr0QUjOs

Here is a link to the full complaint/suit if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.gbfirm.com/litigation/documents/74_RamseycomplaintFinal.pdf

There's almost no question that she was shifting gears for the car to end up in reverse right?