Woman who saved the life of a cop who was losing a fight with a meth-head…
As the situation grew increasingly dire, Jaehnen, a concerned female neighbor, raced to the officer’s aid.
“It was at that time that a female… nearby saw what was taking place, and decided that she needed to take action to come to the assistance of that officer,” Sgt. Wheeles told WLWT.
“The female fired one shot from a personally owned firearm at Holland, striking him in the torso,” police said, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Jaehnen and her mother, who had originally placed the 911 call, then began performing CPR on the wounded attacker, APD Sergeant William Halbig told Blue Lives Matter.
…is being sued by the meth-head’s family:
Despite the circumstances of the incident, Holland’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jaehnen, Officer Powell, and the DNR on Feb. 15.
If the woman – the hero – is so much as inconvenienced by this sham civil trial, legal heads should roll.
Perp’s family found a shyster with no other paid work to do, hoping for a settlement.
No lawyer is crazy enough to actually want a case like this tried before a jury.
Self-defense is a DEFENSE that you raise in court, at the trial, when you’re being sued or prosecuted.
If you are allowed to raise it at all. In Minnesota, that’s at the judge’s discretion, it’s not guaranteed you’ll be able to make that argument to the jury.
Is anyone beginning to see why the law needs changing?
Let’s see if the cop union, or the cops themselves ponies up the cash to hire her a lawyer.
Bet they won’t. Handing out specious awards paid for by the city is one thing, coughing up their own pláta is something else.
If I was the kind of guy that carried a weapon, I don’t think I’d use it to save anyone outside my immediate family and circle of close friends.
Too much to risk in the current year. Is that person being attacked a reprobate leftist? Is that guy doing the attacking being protected by leftist identity politics? Is the local judiciary infected with leftist judges/prosecutors?
No. It’s not worth the risk. Thankfully I’ll never have to make those calls, because guns scare the heck out of me.
My rape whistle is the only protection I need.
This is a great example of why we need “loser pays” in cases like this. There are great uses of civil law, but any lawyer who takes the case of a meth-head who gets himself killed by assaulting a cop needs his head, and his bar license, examined. A nice intermediate step would be if he would be personally liable for the legal bills of the person he sued when the jury said “nice try, dipstick”.
If the Met Council can get an injunction from a judge requiring a group opposed to the Southwest LRT line to post a bond indemnifying the State against potential financial costs of delaying construction (which the group couldn’t afford), then why can’t we require the same for these types of suits. If the plaintiff needs to get cash to do so, then they can find a financial institution willing to back the bond in anticipation of a payout for winning the case. If they can’t find an institution that thinks it is a good bet, that might tell them something.
(Note: all in all, I think what I just described is bad policy, but if the Met Council can do it, why not put it on the table.)
I wonder if we could use their own twisted logic against them. File a fiscal malfeasance lawsuit against them for spending millions up front without approval. Since no one associated with that criminal organization is elected, normal indemnification rules shouldn’t apply.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 04.19.18 : The Other McCain