Cop's Negligence Leads To The Destruction Of 13 Cars

Very poorly managed.

Back-burning is to avoid disasters not cause them.

He should have to pay for all the cars out of his own pocket.

If anybody else started the fire they would be liable for the restitution of the cars lost.

They would also be charged with "negligence causing the destruction of private property"., why hasn't the cop?

Also will the insurance companies still payout if no one is charged.

Usually courts rule the consequences of your actions make you liable, so will the police deny liability because the people who owned the cars must have done something wrong for the cars to be impounded, hence it is their fault.

www.news.com.au...

A FIRE believed caused by a Northern Territory cop's attempt at back-burning has destroyed 13 vehicles in a police car pound.
The flames spread out of control to a holding yard attached to the police station at Maranboy, south of Katherine, on Friday evening.

Local police investigated and found the compound - containing 13 vehicles impounded for a variety of reasons - engulfed in flames.

No police vehicles were damaged and neither was the station.

Initial investigations indicate the fire was started as a result of an officer conducting back-burning in the area.

reply to post by acrux


Before crucifixing the officer, you should check to see if its something he was ordered to do. If it was, then the fault lies with the Police Department itself to replace the damaged vehicles. If the cop took it upon himself then yeah, he should be required to pay for the cars since he didnt have adequate means to monitor / control the fire.

Then again this occured in Austrailia so im not sure exactly what laws cover this.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by acrux

 

Before crucifixing the officer, you should check to see if its something he was ordered to do. If it was, then the fault lies with the Police Department itself to replace the damaged vehicles. If the cop took it upon himself then yeah, he should be required to pay for the cars since he didnt have adequate means to monitor / control the fire.

Then again this occured in Austrailia so im not sure exactly what laws cover this.

Regardless of who or why is the result of that decision, the most likely response from a US police force would be,
"Oooops. our mistake, but we ain't gonna pay" You know, the same response you get when they break down the wrong door by mistake or accidently run into your car when on a chase.

reply to post by Aliensun
I know of a case where a cop was speeding with no light or sirens going, he crashed into the side of another car killing the two occupants of that car. Happened right out the front of a church just after the church service had finished so everyone was out the front of the church, so many witnesses against the cop.
My mother-in-law at the time was a witness & testified against the cop.
End result, cop got off & kept his job. No responsibilty. No restitution for the families.

Originally posted by acrux
End result, cop got off & kept his job. No responsibilty. No restitution for the families.

It seems they always do.

Originally posted by Aliensun

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by acrux

 

Before crucifixing the officer, you should check to see if its something he was ordered to do. If it was, then the fault lies with the Police Department itself to replace the damaged vehicles. If the cop took it upon himself then yeah, he should be required to pay for the cars since he didnt have adequate means to monitor / control the fire.

Then again this occured in Austrailia so im not sure exactly what laws cover this.

Regardless of who or why is the result of that decision, the most likely response from a US police force would be,
"Oooops. our mistake, but we ain't gonna pay" You know, the same response you get when they break down the wrong door by mistake or accidently run into your car when on a chase.

Actually no it wouldnt be since we are not allowed to just initiate a backburn on our own, nor would we be ordered to do so either. The backburns I have seen done have all been on private property, and have been done within rules set by the fire department (must be watched at all times, must have a water source present to assist in control, fire department randomly checks in).

If a Polic eofficer in the states did this, he would be required to pay for it since I know of no police department that has anything like this listed as the duty of an officer. Since he would be outside of departmental policy, they can sever there relationship to the officer, removing his civil immunity, and leaving the entire liability to that officer.

So no, you would not get that answer.

reply to post by acrux


Where did your story occur at? Austrailia or the US?

reply to post by Aliensun


I looove how you turn this to "if it was a cop in the US' thing
it wasnt IN the USA so keep your opinion to yourself

reply to post by Xcathdra
Northern Territory is a state of Australia. The capital is Darwin.

Originally posted by acrux
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Northern Territory is a state of Australia. The capital is Darwin.

I was talking about the cop who was not running lights and sirens. If it happened in Austrailia, then no comment. If It happened in the states there is a problem. We arent allowed to run no lights / sirens while ignoring traffic laws. Hell even running lights no sirens is a no no. When we are running full code due dilligence still falls to the officer. Meaning if he is running full code down the street, and comes to an intersection where he has the green, and someone runs the redlight and the cop hits that person, we are still accountible.

Why I was aksing.

reply to post by Xcathdra
Happened NSW, Australia 1989/90.

We have the same laws about lights & sirens, must be used only in emergency/police related activites. When speeding they must be used.