Good Samaritans?

[tyketime]

Not a strange news story, but one I hope worthy of good debate:

Lawsuit asks: When is it bad to be a 'good Samaritan'?

By JASON NARK
Philadelphia Daily News

Three strangers from South Jersey became good Samaritans for a few frantic minutes outside a Wawa last year when they helped a police officer subdue a man in the parking lot.

That man, Keith Briscoe, apparently had done nothing wrong, though, and died beneath a pile of civilians and police officers. Now, the Winslow Township officer who initiated the arrest is no longer on the force, and he, those "good Samaritans" and four current officers are defendants in a $25 million civil lawsuit filed on behalf of Briscoe's family.

"They were culpable in causing someone's death," said Stanley King, the attorney representing Briscoe's family.

One of those men, Daniel Damato, of Maple Shade, said last week that he vividly remembers the morning of May 3 and knows exactly why he helped Winslow Township police Officer Sean Richards.

"He dropped his handcuffs and I thought the guy might have tried to grab his gun," Damato said.

A manager at the Wawa and a Camden County man who intervened could not be reached for comment yesterday.

The suit also names four other police officers who arrived on the scene to help subdue Briscoe.

Briscoe, who was schizophrenic and who lived at home, was standing outside the Wawa smoking a cigarette and drinking a soda he'd bought in the store. Briscoe, 36, visited the store every morning before going to Steininger Behavior Care Services down the street. Wawa had a no-loitering policy.

When Richards arrived to buy hot chocolate, he told Briscoe he was loitering and panhandling, and asked him to leave. Briscoe didn't, though, and a struggle ensued when Richards tried to arrest him. When Damato, another customer and the manager intervened, King said, Briscoe had already been maced several times and was having trouble breathing.

"All of these people who came to his aid had it wrong," King said. "It cost this man his life. I feel bad for the pedestrians as well, because it's a delicate situation, but it is what it is."

King said that the lawsuit wasn't meant to have a "chilling effect" on good Samaritans, but other attorneys think that that's exactly what could happen.

Michael Ferrara, an attorney from Cherry Hill, said that "good Samaritan" statutes in New Jersey protect medical personnel who help at an accident scene, but not the public. "It's a fascinating topic," he said. "I could see it going to the Supreme Court."

Ferrara said he doubts that a jury, when trying to determine who was responsible for Briscoe's death, would place more blame on the civilians than on the former cop.

Richards pleaded guilty to simple assault in October and is no longer a cop.

In a case in Baltimore in 2004, four public-works employees were charged with failure to assist a cop struggling with a drug suspect. Those men sued the city and won. Their attorney, Jeffrey Silver, said that they could have risked being shot themselves if they'd gotten involved.

"How would anyone know who the bad guy was?" he asked.

Tim Quinlan, an attorney who represented Richards, said that his client had not asked the civilians to intervene.

"They saw a cop struggling and they jumped into action," he said. "Now you're going to have cops getting killed because people are afraid to get involved."

[Lathum]

It is a slippery slope, but I say let the police do their job. And TBH cops know when they sign on they are risking their life everyday, I have no intention of risking my life helping them do their job.

[RedKingGold]

I'm surprised the medical staff/paramedics/hospital staff who tended to Brisco weren't named in the suit.

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It is a slippery slope, but I say let the police do their job. And TBH cops know when they sign on they are risking their life everyday, I have no intention of risking my life helping them do their job.

I would tend to agree with you. And certainly the cops are aware of the risks (God bless em...). But I wonder whether they can determine "how much of his death" was attributable to the mace, etc., versus the civilians helping subdue them (and how exactly did they do that?)?

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It is a slippery slope, but I say let the police do their job. And TBH cops know when they sign on they are risking their life everyday, I have no intention of risking my life helping them do their job.

Generally I agree with civilians staying out of the police's way but I've also seen first hand on more than one occassion where an officer's life was saved or at least was saved from a brutal beating because of a civilian helping out.

How many more people would have been injured or killed if the bystanders hadn't stopped the guy in Tuscon just last month?

[molson]

I wonder what this victim's family situation was, whether he had any dependents, how involved his family was with his life, ect. These lawsuits are so annoying to me. "Hey everybody, crazy Uncle Keith kicked the bucket - JACKPOT!!"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Shepp

How many more people would have been injured or killed if the bystanders hadn't stopped the guy in Tuscon just last month?

I don't disagree with your premis but I think this is a poor example. As far as I know there weren't any police on the scene when civilians subdued the shooter.

I'll also add I think the reporting of this story leads a lot to be desired. Just what went on in the struggle between the cop and the loiterer? The way the story is written it seems like the cop said leave, the guy said no, and bam, the cop arrested him. I would like to know more about the alleged struggle.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would like to know more about the alleged struggle.

Yup. And unless I missed it, what injuries did this person sustain that contributed to his death other than being maced.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't disagree with your premis but I think this is a poor example. As far as I know there weren't any police on the scene when civilians subdued the shooter.

I agree that its not exactly an apples to apples comparison but the bottom line is that instead of letting the police handle the problem civilians stood up to do the right thing. Any or all of those people could have chosen to flee instead of engage that guy and the results probably would have been alot worse.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'll also add I think the reporting of this story leads a lot to be desired. Just what went on in the struggle between the cop and the loiterer? The way the story is written it seems like the cop said leave, the guy said no, and bam, the cop arrested him. I would like to know more about the alleged struggle.

Honestly, there probably isn't a whole lot more to the story than that. The same scenario plays out countless times every day across the country. A police officer encounters a person. I'm assuming the person was acting strangely based on the fact that the article says he was schizophrenic but who knows. The officer tells this person to move along and they don't. At that point the officer has a decision to make; let it go or do something about it. Since the "do something about it" option is basically restricted to taking the person to jail that is was the officer tries to do. The person does not want to go and fights with the officer. The thing that sets this encounter apart is the fact that buddy died as a result.

[JediKooter]

This part bothers me: "Briscoe, who was schizophrenic and who lived at home, was standing outside the Wawa smoking a cigarette and drinking a soda he'd bought in the store. Briscoe, 36, visited the store every morning before going to Steininger Behavior Care Services down the street. Wawa had a no-loitering policy."

So, he goes there EVERY morning and not one employee told the cop that he's a regular there? Granted, there's a no-loitering policy, however, I would think that was not the first time he's ever hung out to smoke and drink his soda before heading over to his meeting at the Care Center. However, details are slim in the story, so who knows what exactly happened preceding the incident.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This part bothers me: "Briscoe, who was schizophrenic and who lived at home, was standing outside the Wawa smoking a cigarette and drinking a soda he'd bought in the store. Briscoe, 36, visited the store every morning before going to Steininger Behavior Care Services down the street. Wawa had a no-loitering policy."

So, he goes there EVERY morning and not one employee told the cop that he's a regular there? Granted, there's a no-loitering policy, however, I would think that was not the first time he's ever hung out to smoke and drink his soda before heading over to his meeting at the Care Center. However, details are slim in the story, so who knows what exactly happened preceding the incident.

I think this is an interesting point. The fact that the manager jumped in as well makes me think they didn't want him hanging out there every morning.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Shepp

The officer tells this person to move along and they don't. At that point the officer has a decision to make; let it go or do something about it. Since the "do something about it" option is basically restricted to taking the person to jail that is was the officer tries to do. The person does not want to go and fights with the officer. The thing that sets this encounter apart is the fact that buddy died as a result.

I'm sure the mans mental illness will be a factor, but the bottom line is do what the police say and stuff like this doesn't happen.

If the police are in the wrong then there are ways to bring that up after the fact. Now I am in no way saying the man deserved to die, but when you don't obey the police and fight with them it usually ends badly for you.

[molson]

Here's some more info. Things still don't really add up though. There must have been some scene for 5 civilians and 3 other cops to get involved. The officer's assault conviction wasn't based on the force, but just on an "unlawful arrest" - which I don't quite understand either.

Winslow officer to forfeit job after pleading guilty to assault in case where man died of traumatic asphyxia | NJ.com

[JediKooter]

Ok, from reading the article link from molson, sounds like a series of fuck ups. An illegal arrest, a schizophrenic person and some people just trying to help. How big was this dude where they need 8 people to subdue him?

If this was the only evidence and I was on the jury...the good samaritans would not be held responsible. The only thing I would hold the cop that maced him and tried to arrest him, accountable for would be for violating his civil rights over the illegal arrest. If there was no excessive force or anything like that, I would be hard pressed to hold him legally responsible for his death. Now, if he was sitting there beating the dude or something like that, different story.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This part bothers me: "Briscoe, who was schizophrenic and who lived at home, was standing outside the Wawa smoking a cigarette and drinking a soda he'd bought in the store. Briscoe, 36, visited the store every morning before going to Steininger Behavior Care Services down the street. Wawa had a no-loitering policy."

So, he goes there EVERY morning and not one employee told the cop that he's a regular there? Granted, there's a no-loitering policy, however, I would think that was not the first time he's ever hung out to smoke and drink his soda before heading over to his meeting at the Care Center. However, details are slim in the story, so who knows what exactly happened preceding the incident.

If the guy bought a soda, is that still loitering?

(When I was in HS and worked at restaurants, loitering was only applied to folks who hadn't made a purchase -- that is, to discourage teens from hanging out in the parking lot. We didn't complain when church folks bought .25 ice cream cones and then chatted in the parking lot for two hours.)

I only ask because I'm not certain based on my experience what actually constitutes the legal definition of loitering.

Bottom line is that I think the way this went down is very likely much more about mental illness than what actually happened. Mental illness makes people nervous. There's less benefit of the doubt. It sucks, but it's the way the world is. I'm pretty sure we've been finding ways to justify killing crazy, disruptive, weird people for as long as we've had society.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Drake

(When I was in HS and worked at restaurants, loitering was only applied to folks who hadn't made a purchase -- that is, to discourage teens from hanging out in the parking lot. We didn't complain when church folks bought .25 ice cream cones and then chatted in the parking lot for two hours.)

Did you go to high school in 1952?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Did you go to high school in 1952?

No, just in small town Indiana...which is perpetually stuck in 1952.

Edit: And, no, we didn't have any black people in my town, either. They were all lynched for loitering.

[Drake]

dola...

Richards was not charged in connection with Briscoe’s death because in New Jersey there is no right to resist arrest, even if the arrest is illegal, Laughlin explained. Once Briscoe resisted being taken into custody, police had the right to take actions necessary to restrain him. There is no evidence to indicate the police used excessive or illegal force in taking Briscoe into custody, the spokesman said.

This quote from the article molson posted is really, really disturbing to me.

If the police are allowed to arrest you whether or not its legal, and you're not allowed to resist them, even if what they're doing to you is patently illegal, what recourse do people who are wrongfully arrested actually have? You can't resist, even if you're wrongly arrested? Can you subsequently be charged with resisting a wrongful arrest? What if you actually beat the cop down (instead of the expected outcome where you get beaten up, then apologized to so you don't sue) when he's trying to wrongfully apprehend you, does everyone just agree to call it even?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Drake

If the guy bought a soda, is that still loitering?

(When I was in HS and worked at restaurants, loitering was only applied to folks who hadn't made a purchase -- that is, to discourage teens from hanging out in the parking lot. We didn't complain when church folks bought .25 ice cream cones and then chatted in the parking lot for two hours.)

I only ask because I'm not certain based on my experience what actually constitutes the legal definition of loitering.

Good question. I don't know if it is or not. I'm leaning towards it not being loitering, especially since there were no prior complaints about him & I'm assuming he had done business with the Wawa by purchasing the soda from them.

[Passacaglia]

Little ditty about Jack and Diane
Two American kids growin up in the heartland
Jacky's gonna be a football star
Diane debutante backseat of Jacky's car

Suckin' on chili dogs outside the tastee freeze
Diane's sittin' on Jacky's lap
He's got his hand between her knees
Jacky say "Hey Diane lets run off
Behind a shady tree"
Dribble off those Bobby Brooks
Let me do what I please.
And Jacky Say

Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of livin is gone
Oh yeay say life goes on
Long after the thrill of livin is gone, they walk on

Jacky sits back reflects his thoughts for the moment
Scratches his head and does his best james dean.
Well you know diane, we oughtta run of the city
Diane says "Baby, you aint missin' no-thing"
Jacky say a

Gonna let it rock
Let it roll
Let the Bible Belt come down
And Save My soul
Hold on to 16 as long as you can
Changes come around real soon
Make us women and men

Little ditty about Jack and Diane
Two american kids doing the best they can

[molson]

Originally Posted by Drake

dola...

This quote from the article molson posted is really, really disturbing to me.

If the police are allowed to arrest you whether or not its legal, and you're not allowed to resist them, even if what they're doing to you is patently illegal, what recourse do people who are wrongfully arrested actually have? You can't resist, even if you're wrongly arrested? Can you subsequently be charged with resisting a wrongful arrest? What if you actually beat the cop down (instead of the expected outcome where you get beaten up, then apologized to so you don't sue) when he's trying to wrongfully apprehend you, does everyone just agree to call it even?

I think the states are pretty much split on this, but I can see how some would find it problematic to embolden arrestees (who most of the time are drunks, druggies, or crazies), to made their own determinations about whether their arrest is legal or not at the time. What you can do about it is contest it after the arrest. An orderly society has to trust the police with all kinds of things (at least to a degree, for a limited period of time), I think this is just one of them. We have to basically trust one or other entity to make some kind of legal determination at the time, and I think it's probably better to leave that to officers (who have at least had some training) than to the arestees. And of course, someone doesn't even actually have to be guilty of anything to be legally arrested - we make that actual determination in court later. So really where that legal/illegal distinction is made and judged after the fact is what was going on in the cop's mind - something the arrestee can't possibly know at the time.

And what kind of remedy is attempting to resist arrest anyway, even if it's unlawful? It's incredibly dangerous for yourself, the officer, and potentially civilians. And it almost never will actually work. I've never heard of the case where an officer tries to arrest someone, the arrestee resists, and then the officer thinks, "man, this shit's too hard," and walks away.

EDIT: FWIW, I don't get why the arrest here was unlawful. I take the word of the article and everyone involved - maybe everyone decided that he wasn't loitering, or that loitering is an infraction not subject to arrest in PA (though I'm not sure how else you'd enforce it if someone refuses to leave)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

EDIT: FWIW, I don't get why the arrest here was unlawful. I take the word of the article and everyone involved - maybe everyone decided that he wasn't loitering, or that loitering is an infraction not subject to arrest in PA (though I'm not sure how else you'd enforce it if someone refuses to leave)

After Googling my way through several articles, mostly filled with blah blah blah from the family & various activist groups, it looks like it boiled down to the officer attempting to charge him with the wrong thing.

Once the guy failed to comply with instructions to move along, the charge would have been disorderly person. Instead, the officer went with loitering which was rejected because the store hadn't made a complaint & the guy had bought something. Sometimes common sense definitions & legal definitions don't jibe, this looks like one of those times.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

EDIT: FWIW, I don't get why the arrest here was unlawful. I take the word of the article and everyone involved - maybe everyone decided that he wasn't loitering, or that loitering is an infraction not subject to arrest in PA (though I'm not sure how else you'd enforce it if someone refuses to leave)

My understanding of why it was an illegal arrest is because the officer offered the guy a ride to the Care Center, he wasn't arresting him. The guy refused the offer and freaked out, that's when the cop tried to arrest him. As far as I know, refusing a ride from a police officer, is not illegal. I could have read it wrong though.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

My understanding of why it was an illegal arrest is because the officer offered the guy a ride to the Care Center, he wasn't arresting him. The guy refused the offer and freaked out, that's when the cop tried to arrest him. As far as I know, refusing a ride from a police officer, is not illegal. I could have read it wrong though.

Did he possibly assault the officer when he freaked out? I find it hard to believe there was no sort of physical contact initiated at some point by the suspect.

[JediKooter]

Unfortunately, I don't see anything that said he did assault the cop. Not saying he didn't, just that nothing said he did. However, the cop was charged with simple assault & apparently, that's what cost him his job.

Upon re-reading the link, the cop 'ordered' him into the car as opposed to just an offer of a ride. So when I hear 'ordered', then he was, in a way, detaining the guy. So I can see where in a schizophrenic's mind, "I'm going to jail" and then a freak out occurs. Now the cop is pissed, calls for back up and the chain of events has gone past the point of no return.

There is some video of the incident, so maybe that could shed more light on the actual events.

[Drake]

So after spending the afternoon thinking about it, I can see why we'd (as a society) have a vested interest in supporting even unlawful arrests and letting the courts sort it out. I suppose that technically everyone who is arrested and subsequently acquitted could claim that they were arrested unlawfully otherwise, so I get that. We don't want people beating down cops because the cops are operating in good faith based on the best information they have available to them at the time.

What happens to people who are arrested (incorrectly, unlawfully, mistaken identity, whatever) and have to defend themselves in court? If I hire a lawyer to defend me from the unlawful arrest, are there remedies to reimburse me the money I've paid to defend myself? I mean, if the police made the error (and "unlawful arrest" would suggest that my rights were violated), should I really be on the hook for the cost of defending myself?

Anyone know how that works?

(I've always sort of assumed that those stories about police raiding the wrong house in the middle of the night due to address mix-ups ended with the city paying to fix any damage to the property/medical bills plus some token for pain and suffering, but I have to admit that I've never followed up on any of those sorts of stories.)