Wed. Dec 1st, 2021

4 thoughts on “Inglewood police officer sued for failure to obey traffic laws

  1. Thank you 2 urban girls for the providing the documents so we can read and decide in our own brains rather than giving us only he said she said versions.

    The documents are Impressive…..problematic…..providing disturbing insights…….it seems Attorney George Mallory (the guy we – the residents will pay big bucks to ) – is suggesting that neither “ the city” or any employees are to be held liable for omission or action even if someone is injured!

    Interesting the presented reason not to award damages is no suggestion or rebuttal saying the employee followed the law, looked both ways, or had sirens on and the injured should have seen/heard the police racing to protect and defend another…….and therefore changed her idea about crossing the street.

    It seems the “defense” is not based on what occurred -what the officer may or may not have done but instead a “no matter what – the city will not pay for injuries ……..but I am happy to take attorney fees concept”.

    So both attorneys seem to agree ——as presented, it seems the pedestrian was walking NORTH on La Brea enters the intersection. – the Officer (presumably in our police car) is going EAST on Beach and while making a right turn hits her with a the city owned car.

    ******** Never mind that many of us were taught red traffic signals were not decorations – but put in place for cars to bring the car to a FULL and COMPLETE STOP , LOOK BOTH WAYS, PEDESTRIANS should be allowed to make it to the curb before you remove your foot from the brake and press down on the gas pedal.*****and no we don’t have to discuss what the cute no-right-on-red-sign means******

    But ……back to the attorney response (please read them using the links)- Did anyone else notice what the attorney does not say for instance the light was green, so presumably there was no reason to believe there were any pedestrians in the crosswalk – or- not even he was responding to an emergency sirens lights flashing and knowing he was distracted …she should have stopped mid step and backed up to let him go through the red ?????….. NOPE, the attorney appears to present matter of factory that the city and employee should simply not be held responsible for their actions or non-actions. What? (Yep read it yourself.)

    Well jumping June bugs !!!!! what is that about ?????……. with gobble guck like this …if law enforcement officers -or any other employee- action or “omission” -of-action results in NO RESPONSIBILITY we the residents need to reconsider what kind of &#$$#& …we have hiring the attorneys who represent us and permit this type of defense.!

    Employees (this includes the Mayor and Council members ) should never think because they get a payroll check ( or wear a badge ) they have free license to disobey simple traffic rules and plow cars into pedestrians ~OR ~in any other way cause harm to people or property..

    This may very well have been a simple accident for which we the residents should simply pay medical expenses.

    UNFORTUNATELY the CITY paid ATTORNEY response is far more disgusting and revolting !
    That the concept of a multiple horse powered metal (or other composite) vehicle colliding with flesh and bones is to be disregarded is an insult to everyone of us !! It as if nothing matters we ain’t paying nuthin.

    Let us hope this isn’t the ATTORNEY representing the city in the -Oops the news covered it – James Butts turned on a red light in front a woman-with- a-child-in-the-car sending a motor officer flying into a stone fountain case…If a jury heard this defense …..wow We can only imagine ….hmmmm is it possible that/ those multiple jury awards could carry with them ..serious “how dare you insult-to-public-for-thinking-blaming-the-victim for Butts disregard for red traffic signal is-okay” dollars………?

    1. It sounds like the officer failed to identify himself as a police officer, to possibly avoid problems at work, and the victims attorney found out otherwise.

      1. Item 11 on page 3 – “operating a Vehicle Owned by the City of Inglewood .. in the course of and scope of his employment “

        So when they exchanged information ie the auto- registration info..that ownership might be a clue…

        Let us hope we are not paying for all officers to have take home city owned vehicles – remember one of the early responders to the Saugus High School shooting in Santa Clarita was an off duty officer in an City of Inglewood Black and White marked Police Vehicle…

        Could this be why the city finances are a mess ?

        1. Lieutenants get take home cars, however, state auditors dinged the city for not having proper inventory of assets including vehicles. If he was in the city car, the City shouldn’t be asserting they not attached to the lawsuit.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: