Reader comments
Supreme Court: Handcuffed man can't sue UHP for injuries
39 comments | Read story
Video? | 2:10 p.m. July 1, 2008
Is there a video available of this guy falling flat on his face? Now that would
be funny!
Unbelievable! | 2:28 p.m. July 1, 2008
So what the court has just said is that UHP can do anything it wants without
consequence. What they just ruled is that you don't have inalienable
rights, and that the very government designed to protect them can violate them
with impunity with not accountability. The very law that grants immunity is on
it's face unconstitutional. No one is above the law! Not the Executive,
Legislative, or the Judicial.
It is time we sweep out the stale and unpredictable career oriented government and renew it with fresh blood. Those who have a Constitutionally sound foundation. Every branch of this government has become bigger than the very thing it was designed to protect. In other words the program has become more important than the purpose of the program.
Extremely disappointing.
It is time we sweep out the stale and unpredictable career oriented government and renew it with fresh blood. Those who have a Constitutionally sound foundation. Every branch of this government has become bigger than the very thing it was designed to protect. In other words the program has become more important than the purpose of the program.
Extremely disappointing.
James | 2:59 p.m. July 1, 2008
No, that's not what the court said. How can you take that ruling and claim
that's what it means? The last person I want interpreting the constitution
is someone who makes such sweeping and distorted generalizations, such as
yourself.
Comments continue below
Zacko | 3:05 p.m. July 1, 2008
So what you are saying "Unbelievable!" is that the troopers should be
legally liable for an accident that occurred? I'm sure us tax payers paid
for his head trauma and hospital stay, what more does he want?
It's not like they intentionally face planted the dude, who by the way, had committed a crime.
The constitution is to protect us against jack booted thugs, not UHP Troopers acting in the line of duty.
Allowing a lawsuit to continue in this case would have just cost us all money and not accomplished anything except making some ambulance chasing lawyer a fistful of money.
It's not like they intentionally face planted the dude, who by the way, had committed a crime.
The constitution is to protect us against jack booted thugs, not UHP Troopers acting in the line of duty.
Allowing a lawsuit to continue in this case would have just cost us all money and not accomplished anything except making some ambulance chasing lawyer a fistful of money.
Dave | 3:06 p.m. July 1, 2008
@Unbelievable: Ok, i'm no fan of cops, but come on.
You really think this guy is entitled to umpty-million bucks of taxpayer money because he fell while trying to be combative with the cops? (While plastered out of his mind, and after having been driving drunk, let's not forget.)
This was a nuisance lawsuit and the only real outrage is that it got as far as it did. The plaintiff couldn't handle the responsibility that comes with drinking, so he drove. Couldn't take responsibility for his DUI, so he fought, and look what it got him. So he sued, since nothing else must be his fault, of course he'd better sue over this, right?
The court should order this idiot to reimburse legal fees to the state for this frivolous suit.
You really think this guy is entitled to umpty-million bucks of taxpayer money because he fell while trying to be combative with the cops? (While plastered out of his mind, and after having been driving drunk, let's not forget.)
This was a nuisance lawsuit and the only real outrage is that it got as far as it did. The plaintiff couldn't handle the responsibility that comes with drinking, so he drove. Couldn't take responsibility for his DUI, so he fought, and look what it got him. So he sued, since nothing else must be his fault, of course he'd better sue over this, right?
The court should order this idiot to reimburse legal fees to the state for this frivolous suit.
Whatever! | 3:10 p.m. July 1, 2008
So you think that this guy should be able to sue the cops because he was too
drunk to control himself? Maybe you were someone who fell on your face after
getting a DUI and now you just want payback? Pathetic people, they get what they
deserve!
bkb | 3:18 p.m. July 1, 2008
What we need to do is make that part of the arrest procedure for all drunk
drivers... handcuff them, bind their legs, then push them over face first. Good
job UHP!
well... | 3:22 p.m. July 1, 2008
...they should at least help him get his face put back together.
Re Unbelievable! | 2:28 p.m. | 3:24 p.m. July 1, 2008
You said, "What they just ruled is that you don't have inalienable
rights".
Since when is it your "Inalienable right" to fall on your face and get paid for it?
The "Rights" some people assume are enumerated in the Constitution vs the ones that actually are, but many Americans are perfectly willing to dismiss them (like 2nd ammendment rights) just amazes me.
Do you REALLY think if you are cuffed and decide to run and trip and fall, you have an inalienable right to sue the officer???
Since when is it your "Inalienable right" to fall on your face and get paid for it?
The "Rights" some people assume are enumerated in the Constitution vs the ones that actually are, but many Americans are perfectly willing to dismiss them (like 2nd ammendment rights) just amazes me.
Do you REALLY think if you are cuffed and decide to run and trip and fall, you have an inalienable right to sue the officer???
UNBELIEVABLE ! ! ! | 3:28 p.m. July 1, 2008
NO, the UHP cannot do anything it wants. There is no evidence of police
brutality here. Where is the responsibility for driving while intoxicated? If
he had not been driving under the influence he would not have been arrested in
the first place. I am pleased that he was arrested and that his irresponsible
behavior did not further endanger or kill someone on the highways. It is
unfortunate that he was injured.
He was in their custody moron | 3:37 p.m. July 1, 2008
Re Unbelievable,
"Since when is it your "Inalienable right" to fall on your face and get paid for it?"
The moment the officer chose to take him into his custody. Had he had his hands free he may have been able to prevent himself from falling on his face by putting his arms out.
"The "Rights" some people..."
The Constitution also makes it clear that we retain rights that aren't enumerated but it is even more explicit in enumerating the "right of the people to be secure in their persons..."
"Do you REALLY think if you are cuffed and decide to run and trip and fall, you have an inalienable right to sue the officer???"
Yes I do and you and the 3 people who agreed with you are wrong.
This is what this is about: the officer violated his rights then those who agree with him violated his rights by making the ruling they did. You asked the question and I answer: YES IT IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT EVEN IF THOSE WHO DON'T THINK SO DISAGREE. If the government chooses to take you into its custody they have a duty to keep you secure because you are unable to.
"Since when is it your "Inalienable right" to fall on your face and get paid for it?"
The moment the officer chose to take him into his custody. Had he had his hands free he may have been able to prevent himself from falling on his face by putting his arms out.
"The "Rights" some people..."
The Constitution also makes it clear that we retain rights that aren't enumerated but it is even more explicit in enumerating the "right of the people to be secure in their persons..."
"Do you REALLY think if you are cuffed and decide to run and trip and fall, you have an inalienable right to sue the officer???"
Yes I do and you and the 3 people who agreed with you are wrong.
This is what this is about: the officer violated his rights then those who agree with him violated his rights by making the ruling they did. You asked the question and I answer: YES IT IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT EVEN IF THOSE WHO DON'T THINK SO DISAGREE. If the government chooses to take you into its custody they have a duty to keep you secure because you are unable to.
Chuck | 3:50 p.m. July 1, 2008
After reading the few posts concerning this story, I am proud of the people who
stood up for the UHP and placed the responsability on the person it truely
belongs. Now we need to try and get the rest of the country to follow this
example.
Are you serious? | 3:59 p.m. July 1, 2008
So you beilieve the lady who spilled hot coffee on her self while at McDonalds
and sued them should have had an employee poor the coffee into her cup and hold
it for her while she sipped it? Wow!! I guess you could argue about that one
since she was in their care while on their property, so that makes them
responsible for other peoples stupidity, geeze! Unbelievable!!
j | 4:04 p.m. July 1, 2008
Your Inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
that's it
No Win | 4:08 p.m. July 1, 2008
I'll take the word of a UHP over that of a drunk driver ANY DAY. If the
UHP go as far as putting the drunk in a stray jacket for their own protection
then the drunk will want to sue for being put in a stray jacket. Get real.
Some people are so open minded their brains fall out.
dbf | 4:10 p.m. July 1, 2008
Yes he was in their custody, however he was refusing to follow an order by an
officer and was fighting them. Thus he caused them to have to take him to the
ground and was hurt in the process. So, who's fault was it? Also, no
reason to call people names just because you disagree with them. That is just a
sign of immaturity.
Dave | 4:15 p.m. July 1, 2008
Peck's inebriated state at the time of injury probably has more to do with
the ruling than any claim of negligence. He disobeyed an order from a peace
officer. The cop was trying to protect peck and himself by requesting that he
stay at the front of the car.
It wasn't the cop's fault. Peck willfully endangered himself.
It wasn't the cop's fault. Peck willfully endangered himself.
gaw | 4:17 p.m. July 1, 2008
Got to love those drunks. Has to be someone other than themselves to blame for
sheer stupidity. Drink, drive, fall down and then blame. Way to go. Obviously
not too bright.
His Rights? | 4:22 p.m. July 1, 2008
Unbelievable get a clue. Just because you said it is an inalienable right
doesn't make it so. His rights were in no way violated and to think they
were takes some extemely distorted thinking. He was in the wrong in every way
imaginable and yet you bemoan his rights. He took some of his own rights away
when he chose drink and drive. I am glad the UHP arrested him before he took
away my right to life. He could have easily killed any one of us INOCENT people
but because of HIS stupid decision. Luckily HIS stupid decision only led to HIM
getting a boo boo. HIS rights, whatever.
RE: He was in their custody moro | 5:08 p.m. July 1, 2008
HOW "UNBELIEVABLE" ! ! !
Yes! It is the right of anyone to expect "safe treatment" while in the custody of the UHP. That right is guaranteed by the constitutions (federal and state).
But no! The accused does NOT have the right to expect that there will be no possible harm as a result of HIS negligence. The officer, in trying to "slowly take down the suspect to the ground," was trying to make sure the suspect (who was shouting at the officers) didn't injure himself. What resulted was an "accident" mitigated by the actions of the suspect.
Yes! It is the right of anyone to expect "safe treatment" while in the custody of the UHP. That right is guaranteed by the constitutions (federal and state).
But no! The accused does NOT have the right to expect that there will be no possible harm as a result of HIS negligence. The officer, in trying to "slowly take down the suspect to the ground," was trying to make sure the suspect (who was shouting at the officers) didn't injure himself. What resulted was an "accident" mitigated by the actions of the suspect.
You are evil. Shame on you! | 5:20 p.m. July 1, 2008
"The officer, in trying to "slowly take down the suspect to the
ground," was trying to make sure the suspect (who was shouting at the
officers) didn't injure himself. What resulted was an "accident"
mitigated by the actions of the suspect."
Mitigated? Are you retarded? Or just plain dumb? Because you obviously don't know the meaning of mitigated. In using mitigated you are saying that the "actions of the suspect" made this accident less severe? If anything you should be arguing the actions of the officer were the mitigating factors since it would be consistent with your argument.
Every suspect has the right to be secure in their persons even when they are being hostile, resistant or being dumb. You say that this was as a result of the negligence of the suspect but it isn't. It was a direct result of him resisting arrest but yet the officer had the higher duty and responsiblity.
We are lucky that the man didn't break his neck in the fall and was killed because we would be talking about that. If the officer stepped away, let him fall and he died would you be arguing the same? If yes, you are evil!
Mitigated? Are you retarded? Or just plain dumb? Because you obviously don't know the meaning of mitigated. In using mitigated you are saying that the "actions of the suspect" made this accident less severe? If anything you should be arguing the actions of the officer were the mitigating factors since it would be consistent with your argument.
Every suspect has the right to be secure in their persons even when they are being hostile, resistant or being dumb. You say that this was as a result of the negligence of the suspect but it isn't. It was a direct result of him resisting arrest but yet the officer had the higher duty and responsiblity.
We are lucky that the man didn't break his neck in the fall and was killed because we would be talking about that. If the officer stepped away, let him fall and he died would you be arguing the same? If yes, you are evil!
Read the ruling | 5:23 p.m. July 1, 2008
For those who apparently did not read the ruling, "In an unanimous ruling
issued Tuesday, the justices said the troopers who arrested Thomas Peck were
protected under governmental immunity from claims of negligence."
No one is immune . Not that the officer does not have the right to place this person under arrest for SUSPICION OF DUI. I'm simply saying that when you and I can be sued for negligence when we stop to help an injured motorist and our well intentioned efforts may lead to permanent injury or death, that same court will demand payment for that negligence.
If the inalienable rights are left for a few men and women in black robes to determine, then we have no inalienable rights and they become the creator. As Jefferson declared the Supreme Court is subject to the Constitution not the Constitution to the Supreme court.
His right to be secure in his person was transfered to the state and they were negligent.
re: His Rights. It is you who needs to get a clue about the broad rights of the individual and the narrow enumerated rights of the state. He only surrenders some rights if and when he is convicted.
No one is immune . Not that the officer does not have the right to place this person under arrest for SUSPICION OF DUI. I'm simply saying that when you and I can be sued for negligence when we stop to help an injured motorist and our well intentioned efforts may lead to permanent injury or death, that same court will demand payment for that negligence.
If the inalienable rights are left for a few men and women in black robes to determine, then we have no inalienable rights and they become the creator. As Jefferson declared the Supreme Court is subject to the Constitution not the Constitution to the Supreme court.
His right to be secure in his person was transfered to the state and they were negligent.
re: His Rights. It is you who needs to get a clue about the broad rights of the individual and the narrow enumerated rights of the state. He only surrenders some rights if and when he is convicted.
He has the same rights evil jerk | 5:29 p.m. July 1, 2008
"Unbelievable get a clue."
He doesn't need to get a clue but you need to get a clue!
"Just because you said it is an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were in no way violated and to think they were takes some extemely distorted thinking."
Just because you say it isn't an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were violated in several ways and to think otherwise takes some extremely retarded thinking on your part.
"He took some of his own rights away when he chose drink and drive. I am glad the UHP arrested him before he took away my right to life."
I guess your life is more important than his so you give your buddy the cop the right to put his life on the line because he did it to you by driving drunk. Poor you! His family doesn't deserve justice even though jerks like you could have caused his death. Is that you Officer Moron?
"Luckily HIS stupid decision only led to HIM getting a boo boo. HIS rights, whatever."
Your rights. Whatever. I coulod care less if you died because your right to life risked his evil jerk.
He doesn't need to get a clue but you need to get a clue!
"Just because you said it is an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were in no way violated and to think they were takes some extemely distorted thinking."
Just because you say it isn't an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were violated in several ways and to think otherwise takes some extremely retarded thinking on your part.
"He took some of his own rights away when he chose drink and drive. I am glad the UHP arrested him before he took away my right to life."
I guess your life is more important than his so you give your buddy the cop the right to put his life on the line because he did it to you by driving drunk. Poor you! His family doesn't deserve justice even though jerks like you could have caused his death. Is that you Officer Moron?
"Luckily HIS stupid decision only led to HIM getting a boo boo. HIS rights, whatever."
Your rights. Whatever. I coulod care less if you died because your right to life risked his evil jerk.
bilbo | 5:36 p.m. July 1, 2008
I am not taking sides here...BUT the Constitution says:"....have certin
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Among these are nlife, liberty and the putsuit of
happiness"
This Constitution does NOT say we ONLY have life, liberty and the pirsuit of happiness.
It says these are AMONG the OTHER "certain unalienable rights"
The problem with a judicial system that answers to NO electorate is the meaning and intent of the Constitution had been so thoroughly bastardized that we do not insist on these rights that have NOT been deliniated.
remember: "...AMONG these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
The Constitution also gives ALL rights to the STATES and citizens that have not been specifically given to the Federal Government. We have given up our birthrights in most cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stolen them from us with our own political complicity.
We have met the enemy and it is us!.
This Constitution does NOT say we ONLY have life, liberty and the pirsuit of happiness.
It says these are AMONG the OTHER "certain unalienable rights"
The problem with a judicial system that answers to NO electorate is the meaning and intent of the Constitution had been so thoroughly bastardized that we do not insist on these rights that have NOT been deliniated.
remember: "...AMONG these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
The Constitution also gives ALL rights to the STATES and citizens that have not been specifically given to the Federal Government. We have given up our birthrights in most cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stolen them from us with our own political complicity.
We have met the enemy and it is us!.
Wow. | 5:38 p.m. July 1, 2008
After reading so many abusive comments, I hope the Des. News moderator removes
them. So many of you are getting out of control here.
Re: Read the ruling | 5:39 p.m. July 1, 2008
Read the ruling,
I agree with you! If I helped someone and caused their death as a result of my negligence I could easily be sued yet this officer placed this man's life in danger. If the article is correct and this man was driving under the influence he placed the life of others at risk, he could be sued for his act of negligence if he caused their deaths.
Had he caused them injury or death as a result of his driving they would be able to sue in addition to criminal action yet the actions of this officer acting on their behalf isn't able to be sued even though his actions directly caused and contributed to this man falling and injuring himself. Had he died the Supreme Court would have likely made the decision in a case involving his family.
They wouldn't get justice!
Certain rights are inalienable and some of those rights are life, liberty and to be secure in our person.
If the state is going to take us into their custody and deprive us of our liberty they must ensure we are secure in our persons and their actions don't cause our deaths or injury.
I agree with you! If I helped someone and caused their death as a result of my negligence I could easily be sued yet this officer placed this man's life in danger. If the article is correct and this man was driving under the influence he placed the life of others at risk, he could be sued for his act of negligence if he caused their deaths.
Had he caused them injury or death as a result of his driving they would be able to sue in addition to criminal action yet the actions of this officer acting on their behalf isn't able to be sued even though his actions directly caused and contributed to this man falling and injuring himself. Had he died the Supreme Court would have likely made the decision in a case involving his family.
They wouldn't get justice!
Certain rights are inalienable and some of those rights are life, liberty and to be secure in our person.
If the state is going to take us into their custody and deprive us of our liberty they must ensure we are secure in our persons and their actions don't cause our deaths or injury.
bilbo | 5:55 p.m. July 1, 2008
take it to Federal Court.
Get it right | 6:02 p.m. July 1, 2008
The officer has a duty to try/attempt/put forward a best effort. One of the guys
above said: "If the government chooses to take you into its custody they
have a duty to keep you secure because you are unable to." They have a duty
to try to keep you secure. If the police officer was driving and obeying traffic
laws and a drunk hit the cruiser and killed Peck, does Peck win that lawsuit.
No first off because of immunity, but also because the officer was attempting to
follow approved procedures. In doing so he has immunity from accident and
effects beyond his control such as slipping on the wet asphalt. Several State
Supreme Court Justices and I agree. Not only on this point, but on good
sameritans who stop and attempt to help others. They disagree with you on your
opinion on immunity. I trust them and their many years experience combined with
their law degrees. Do you have a law degree or just an opinion? Your opinion
is valid, but it is just that, an opinion not base on law.
To further validate my point | 6:21 p.m. July 1, 2008
Read down a few headlines below this one to get just the latest example of
another former high level government official (District Attorney) caught in the
act of burglary. Look at his suspended sentence and then tell me justice was
served. I've seen harsher punishment for traffic infractions. Tell me about
blind trust in government without checks and balances.
"It is the nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D & C 121:39) Experience has witnessed to me this truth.
When will this people wake up to the fact that government officials are not gods. They are supposed to be servants of the people, bound by the limitations of the Constitution (The Supreme Law of the Land).
Is the servant greater than the Master. By what authority can man act as such. That is why rights are referred to as inalienable. Men can only suspend them with limitations until they have been proven to have violated another's.
Otherwise why not just authorize those with a badge to shoot all lawbreakers according to their discretion. Appease the taxpayer.
"It is the nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D & C 121:39) Experience has witnessed to me this truth.
When will this people wake up to the fact that government officials are not gods. They are supposed to be servants of the people, bound by the limitations of the Constitution (The Supreme Law of the Land).
Is the servant greater than the Master. By what authority can man act as such. That is why rights are referred to as inalienable. Men can only suspend them with limitations until they have been proven to have violated another's.
Otherwise why not just authorize those with a badge to shoot all lawbreakers according to their discretion. Appease the taxpayer.
re: Get it right | 7:09 p.m. July 1, 2008
I trust the founders of this nation and the God who inspired them before I would
trust someone with a degree on their wall. You seem to think that a fundamental
truth gives sway to a piece of paper on the wall.
Since laws exist to preserve justice and moral law is the measure by which laws are formulated then as Jefferson stated, "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
Jefferson also declared, "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
That is not to say that this Supreme court has been off the reservation on every ruling. I think they have been right more times than not, but some of their recent rulings seem to contradict previous rulings depending on whether the defendant is powerful or small.
Since laws exist to preserve justice and moral law is the measure by which laws are formulated then as Jefferson stated, "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
Jefferson also declared, "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
That is not to say that this Supreme court has been off the reservation on every ruling. I think they have been right more times than not, but some of their recent rulings seem to contradict previous rulings depending on whether the defendant is powerful or small.
Get it right, re: Get it right | 7:25 p.m. July 1, 2008
Let me get this right. You are saying that God inspired Jefferson, a Deist who
did not believe that God intervened in the world or concerned himself in the
affairs of humans. Sorry, it doesn't make sense.
Clearly | 7:30 p.m. July 1, 2008
the UHP should have called ahead to disbatch and requested that the rain be
stopped and the UHP
dryer-mobile be sent to dry the area of the arrest. The Dui limo should have been sent so the (alleged) suspect could be served an ice cold beer by our public servants (UHP) so he could relax before any testing or arrest had taken place.
I just can't understand how people can be so mean to (alleged) criminals who have no regard for the law. Shame on you UHP, next time you make a stop be
sure that the sky is blue and there is no obstacles that could cause harm to (alleged)criminals. Also make sure that you take your happy pills so the (alleged) criminal feels comfortable during the arrest.
Three cheers to Life, Liberty and the (happy) pursuit of (alleged) criminals.
dryer-mobile be sent to dry the area of the arrest. The Dui limo should have been sent so the (alleged) suspect could be served an ice cold beer by our public servants (UHP) so he could relax before any testing or arrest had taken place.
I just can't understand how people can be so mean to (alleged) criminals who have no regard for the law. Shame on you UHP, next time you make a stop be
sure that the sky is blue and there is no obstacles that could cause harm to (alleged)criminals. Also make sure that you take your happy pills so the (alleged) criminal feels comfortable during the arrest.
Three cheers to Life, Liberty and the (happy) pursuit of (alleged) criminals.
Hey.. | 7:34 p.m. July 1, 2008
the guy was drunk! He put himself in danger, nobody else did! The UHP did every
one a favor of getting the guy off the street. If he wasn't drunk he
wouldn't have fallen over and he also wouldn't have been pulled over
by the UHP for being drunk. So he did it to himself by putting the liquir in his
body. Good job UHP!! Sorry Peck no pity here. Pay your dues!
Give us all a break | 7:35 p.m. July 1, 2008
After reading these postings one thing is perfectly clear. Some people have
nothing better to do with their time than to post inflammatory statments on
these web sites. It is utterly amazing that by the end of this post we are
quoting Thomas Jefferson and calling each other names, and the real issue at
hand is lost in all of this "discussion". Peck was injured due to a
number of decisions that HE made, starting with drinking alcohol, then driving,
and finally fighting with troopers and refusing to comply with their REASONABLE
request to remain at the front of the cruiser so a place could be cleared for
him. Tell me where in this scenario the troopers were neglegent and in any way
caused Mr. Peck's injuries. Enough said. Personal responsibility people!
The Constitution doesn't gaurantee you the right to be an idiot. In the
word's of John Wayne," Life is tough. It's tougher if your
stupid." Maybe Peck should take that one to heart.
Jimmy | 7:53 p.m. July 1, 2008
Read the Eleventh Amendment and some of the cases that deal with that amendment.
Do your research before you claim things are unconstitutional.
Laughable | 9:06 p.m. July 1, 2008
Some of your comments are better than a Laurel and Hardy movie, or a Dean Martin
and Jerry Lewis movie, or a Aboott and Costello movie.
Talking as if you are a lawyer and basing your opinions on what a news article says. We know we can trust all journalists to be asbolutely ethical and honest and unbiased. If you believe that I have several bridges and a few islands west of Nevada to sell you.
Talking as if you are a lawyer and basing your opinions on what a news article says. We know we can trust all journalists to be asbolutely ethical and honest and unbiased. If you believe that I have several bridges and a few islands west of Nevada to sell you.
djt | 9:32 p.m. July 1, 2008
re read the ruling.
1.I thought that governmental immunity (sovereign immunity)was in the constitution. article 2 and the 11th amendment.
2. Good Samaritan laws in every state protect good intention efforts to help injured motorists and others who act in good faith to help injured people.
3. Peck was not injured by the actions of the UHP. Being arrested does not place a responsibility on the officer to suspend the law of gravity. Did the officer make a reasonable, good faith effort to protect Peck? I think so.
A drunk falling down does not sound like police brutality to me.
1.I thought that governmental immunity (sovereign immunity)was in the constitution. article 2 and the 11th amendment.
2. Good Samaritan laws in every state protect good intention efforts to help injured motorists and others who act in good faith to help injured people.
3. Peck was not injured by the actions of the UHP. Being arrested does not place a responsibility on the officer to suspend the law of gravity. Did the officer make a reasonable, good faith effort to protect Peck? I think so.
A drunk falling down does not sound like police brutality to me.
bilbo | 10:11 p.m. July 1, 2008
"To further validate my point"...come on. This "...former high
level government official (District Attorney) caught in the act of
burglary" is hardly a high level government official. SHE (mot HE) was a
;crime victim counselor:; a person who meets with a crime victim a nd tells them
what their options are and advises them to ask for compenation or tells them how
not feel like a 'victim'.
Hardly a "high level government official"; just one of the lowest level employees in the prosecutors office. Not one to make policy or even advise policy.
no need to inflate anything here.
Hardly a "high level government official"; just one of the lowest level employees in the prosecutors office. Not one to make policy or even advise policy.
no need to inflate anything here.
jw layton | 11:19 p.m. July 1, 2008
I was arrested by an SP in the AF back in 83 for not having my line badge
visible. I was complying but he slammed me down and busted my face. He
fabricated the report and there was a real threat that I would stand trial for
resisting arrest. I let it go. However, my moto is: when institution justice
fails, primative justice prevails. About a year later I found him outside a
local saloon slightly drunk. I was very careful that I didn't kill him but
his mother wouldn't have known him when I was done. This guy getting
slammed may have been an accident or not. Cops lie as much as anyone else. If
the State assumes no responsibility for how someone is treated when the are in
custody then there is no incentive to make sure the arrested is reasonably
protected from harm.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Festival of Trees includes roadster 2:14 a.m.
- Getting serious about seat belts 1:15 a.m.
- Witness describes '99 killing 1:15 a.m.
- Police increase presence at Skyline 1:14 a.m.
- Cougars cruise past Southern 1:03 a.m.
- Utes fall to Seattle U. at home 1:01 a.m.
- Utah celebrates Real Salt Lake Day 12:59 a.m.
- Y. focused on 10-win season 12:54 a.m.
- Thunder rolls by Jazz 12:49 a.m.
- Sloan remembers Abe Pollin 12:47 a.m.
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple
- KSL: Prostitution in Utah County
- Best prep football games of 2009
- Man trapped in own body for 23 yrs
- Witness describes '99 killing
- Kirilenko climbing blocks list
- Boys basketball rankings
- 'Dancing' will fill out finale
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
232 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?224
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple189
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match137
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin122
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years93
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals90
Latest comments
Maya was wronged. The trophy was stolen. The judges had to give him a 30 so...
Go Coug's I'll be there at LES and I expect a great finsh from Max Pitta and Co.
At least he won't be a stupid Junior. Has anyone played worse in the rivalry...
I was hoping they would win, but the were up against a lot of great talent....
I agree completely with your comments about Jay Leno. He goes way to far and...
I, too, think Mr. Gale does a great job with his articles. His...
We should drill more and lower the price globally for oil. Fine build nuclear...
No I don't own a poster of shirtless Jacob - but there is a huge difference...
Gary, What nonsense! Specify the emails that "prove" deception. You...
if you guys don't think soccer is a sport? then what do you consider a sport?...
Advertisements