OFFICER BREAKS HIS KNEE – Goes After Home Owner – First Amendment Audit – Amagansett Press
Link to East Hampton Star Full Article: https://www.easthamptonstar.com/2019822/serve-and-protect-then-sue
Link to Officer Bosco Full Video, Audit 8: COP LAYS DOWN THE LAW – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4eFl3PPw3A
** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **
He was injured on the job. The PD has worker's compensation insurance. The work comp insurance carrier is the liable party. Any lost wages is the wc insurance liability. Maybe he is suing the homeowner for pain and suffering. But I am not even sure that is legal in that particular situation. Sounds like a junky situation imo.
Mommy kiss my
bo bo
You don't read our comments. So what are you really looking forward to? Reading donations?
He needs to be kicked off the force
So if you call the police, and they get hurt and can sue you so why bother having them in the first plac
He should only be allowed to sue himself for stupidity. He would win the case and be able to collect every penny he has from himself.
Suing the parent under tort is completely legal, even if he was acting in his professional capacity.
Do I agree with it, no. However, the cop does have the right to a civil trial for damages for personal injury
If police can sue me personally …they arent welcomed on my property. Period. What about store owners that call for a robbery ..if the officer gets shot they can sue the store owner? Seems strange … if that's the case we should be able to tell them to kick rocks. So I guess I will now tell any officer that comes to my house they arent welcomed to my home and property arent open to anyone. and are trespassing that way just in case they fall I'm not liable. . I'm sure there is away around all that too and they could still sue. Wonder if he fell on their property or did he get hurt in a scuffle … was the son the danger that was left unresolved for a long period of time or was it a step or something? Wish there was more info in the article.
Hopefully they counter sue
I think the officer is an azzhole !
He filing a suit to preclude the 17 year old and the homeowner from suing him
Does this mean that soldiers can sue the enemy government for loss of limb and diminished capacity for enjoyment of life?
Maybe they can sue the US?
pretty sure woman on the right of the ppl bosco was talking to was the lady that was really kind at the post office that the black male told that woman you were doing it illegally and she told you about it… Cronin was the “officer in charge†in that vid.
Workmans comp ??
You should know the Supreme Court ruled police have no lawful duty to protect citizens.
Police have insurance. If they want to sue private homeowners then homeowners should have an absolute right to deny them entry or to post conditions upon service on a sign:
NOTICE – any and all governmental services employees, by entering this property you agree that you do so at your own risk. Homeowner will not be responsible for any claims to injury or property – damage or loss. If you do not accept full liability you are not authorized in any way to be here. Turn around and leave or be subject to the terms.
If they enter the property if it has been so posted, it is with the officers consent and he just agreed to the terms.
Absolute bullshit lawsuit. That is his job. He chose it. Workman’s comp like everyone else.
So from now on should public officials sign paperwork BEFORE they go onto someone's property…can you imagine "officer I think there is a bugler in my house but BEFORE you go onto my property and investigate…I need you to sign some paperwork prepared by my attorney" unreal…our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves
Bosco didn’t get much money back from his workmen’s Comp, so that’s probably why he’s suing the home owners! Being GREEDY!!
IF there were extenuating circumstances where the homeowner was 'grossly negligent' and this negligence resulted in his injury, then he should be able to sue them. However, if this was not the case, then it was a work related injury, and work comp should cover it. The police should have to carry some form of insurance like that. I own a small business with no employees and am required to carry it on myself!
If his wife nagged him about not having enough money after receiving workman’s comp, 75 % ,he had to think up another way to bring in some extra cash….just saying.
The homeowner is a DEBTOR so good luck if you are a Secured Party Creditor with a Common Law Trust the PIG would have no ground to stand on
The term "professional" is bandied about by so many sophomoric obscenity spewing auditors effusively but, I appreciate your rolemodeling, and your journalistic elective refraining from doing so. THANK YOU!
This whole story is so convoluted, muddled, & particularly ununifgorm by someone wearing the uniform as to be absurd on many levels. The lack of accountability to my mind is so palpable coming from a cop that generally will never break rank; even if he acts "nice", only suggests he's playing the "good" cop of no greater sanctity than the filth they work with. How many years did he wear the uniform? Is there any indication during his tenure that he broke rank for a higher purpose? Hmmmmm? Were there some evidence of such, otherwise you live by the uniform~you fall by the uniform!!
Breaking news… Cop trips over ego, breaks knee.
If he wins his suit, God help us all. Flood of suits , commercials on TV, Interstate billboards, just plain bad news.
Well this makes it official- “police are responsible for absolutely nothing†!!
HOW COME NONE OF YOU PEOPLE ARE ASKING OL AMAGANSETT MESS WHAT HE'S DOING IN COLORADO? RUN OUT OF TOWN? LEGAL WEED? DIVORCE? THIS DON'T LOOK LIKE NO VACAY!
Would need more info on what happened to the officer.
Funny there was an incident years ago here in Medford, Massachusetts where a Medford police officer was on a private detail at a liquor store. He accompanied a store manager to drop off receipts at a bank and was subsequently robbed at gun point. The officer was shot and sustained a life altering injury and was was essentially out of work. Even though he was on a private detail for this package store it was argued that the establishment should have been paying for his workers comp and disability. It was ruled that even though he was on a private detail he’s a police officer 24/7 therefore the city of Medford must pay for his injuries and disability. This happed around 1980.
This comment is to jason and his son ben @Amagansett Press i want to thank you all for repeatedly standing up for our rights as US citizens ive watched all but 4 videos on this channel so far with in 2 days. i again want to state i thank you and that you have opened my eyes a bit more to the rights we have especialy since the police in the town and state im in are sorta horrible and a few if not most believe that they are above the law or can tell us in the town what to do or get arrested or be fined or so on. With all ive learned so far ill remember these things the next time im stoped by and officer here and hey if your ever around my neck of the woods you should educate the officers here again thank you and please do keep up the good work i hope to see more so that i may learn more then i have already.
Someone suggested if he sued he could make some easy money so he found a low life attorney also looking to make some easy money and the result is the home owner looses. I guess this is a new way for cops to be crooks
It seems like craziness is occupying as much space as it can.
The home owner has insurance, I assume that's why he's suing them. I don't think it's right but that's how they roll.
I could have sworn that we learned in law school that emergency personal, including officers, are barred from pursuing tort claims for job related accidents. Imagine if they were for a second. Every time an officer had to forcefully detain a subject he could sue. The cop would make a goldmine from all the suits he would rack up. I believe I recall learning about the emergency worker exemption when we were studying assumption of the risk. The very nature of an emergency worker’s job involves certain and foreseeable risk. If you foresee the risk associated with an activity you can be barred by common law from suing for your assumption of that risk. Don’t hold me to this but I’m 99% sure that the common low proscribes emergency workers from suing based on job related injuries. The only thing that could supersede the common law would be a statute that specifically entitles them to damages and I cannot see such a statute being written.
WHAT??