NYPD Hits, Kills Suspect with Car, Charges Grieving Mother For Dent on Car

Tamon Robinson was hit by an NYPD car while being chased for allegedly stealing decorative stones (his mother’s admitted as much) from a housing project in Brooklyn. He entered a coma after being hit and eventually died. From USA Today:

Now his mom, Laverne Dobbinson, 45, says she's been ordered to pay the cost of repairing the police car that killed her son, the paper reports.

"We're still grieving, and this is like a slap in the face," Dobbinson said."They want my son to pay for damage to the vehicle that killed him. It's crazy."

A letter dated Sept. 27 and mailed to her son seeks $710 for "property damage to a vehicle owned by the New York Police Department," according to New York Daily News. It also threatens to slap the family with a lawsuit if the claim isn't paid.

The city’s medical examiner ruled the death accidental, but witnesses say cops deliberately hit Robinson and Internal Affairs is investigating that so, um, don’t hold your breath.

UPDATE: As noted by commenter P Brooks, the law firm that sent the letter on behalf of the city said it had dropped the effort and the NYPD has referred the matter of the letter to the Law Department, noting it does not send letters like this itself, according to the New York Times.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • TheSpiteHouse||

    OK, while Robinson shouldn't have been stealing stones, was that crime worth a hot pursuit in the first place? And now the cops are nickel and diming?

  • entropy||

    You know when I was a stupid teenager I sometimes committed petty vandalism to and theft of public property, and a few private mailboxes too. Especially around Halloween.

    Well into my 20's I may have stolen a few roadsigns.

    I was never caught but I'd never imagine a cop who saw me stealing a Speed Hump Ahead sign or nicking a garden gnome would run me over and kill me with his cruiser.

    Decorative rocks?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And if you did think that vandalism and theft was likely to lead to your death or mutilation when caught, maybe you'd have been more respectful of property rights.

    Libertarianism is, of course, silent about what type of punishment is appropriate in response to initiation of coercion. Maybe we should go back to the old ways of dealing with these things. Food for thought.

  • hotsy totsy||

    If it was a housing project, I'd bet it wasn't private property.

    So why didn't they run over the well dressed lady who defaced the poster supporting Israel in the subway?

  • General Butt Naked||

    How about the well dressed politician that stole the money to build that housing project?

    Or how about Tulpa, because the universe needs more fatal irony for authority worshipers.

    Live by the bacon, die by the bacon.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You can't fit a police car into the subway.

    If they pushed her in front of a train I wouldn't complain.

  • entropy||

    That's just it dude.

    Tell parents if their kids get caught smashing mailboxes they may be KILLED.

    See how that flies. Absolutely no parent is down with that suggestion. Teens do unruly things sometimes, a broken mailbox is not the end of the world. You don't run people over for that.

  • entropy||

    Seriously, you think I and others like me should be killed for childish pranks in our youth?

    Fuck you.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm just glad that Neal Armstrong didn't share Tulpa's mentality when I was a teenager.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Now you're back to being a teen? You were in your 20s stealing street signs just a minute ago. And this "kid" was 27.

    I don't necessarily think the death penalty would be warranted for a single act, but a flogging might be in order.

  • ||

    this case does not establish that theft, vandalism, etc. are LIKELY to lead to death or mutilation

    that's histrionic rubbish

    there are literally HUNDREDS of thousands of thefts in NYC every year.

    jesus christ.

  • ||

    when i was a youth, i 'fractured' a few laws

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's all spelled out in your copy of the Social Contract.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Being a dumbass and a vandal are capital crimes.

    OBEY

  • Xenocles||

    Disobedience is the capital crime.

  • ||

    stealing and then running from police = crime

    getting hit by car was APPARENTLY an accident.

    obviously, if the officer intentionally rammed the guy, that's a different issue.

    i am not sure why they'd go after the mom. wasn't the perp an adult? maybe because it's some kind of housing project thing (like she's responsible for people living under roof as primary tenant or something)?

  • sloopyinca||

    What are the department's pursuit rules for minor property theft, asshole? I doubt they include close vehicle pursuit for a person on foot. And I guess you can't fucking read because all of the witnesses said the cops ran the kid down intentionally.

    Anything to defend the cops, huh? You're a despicable human being.*

    *I know he won't respond because I (and some others) have absolutely destroyed his arguments and his reputation on here and exposed him for an enabler and an apologist for murderous goons that carry badges. He's a scumbag that values the contract and policy over justice and liberty. The sooner he is off the streets the better.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Saw one of those cop reality tv shows the other day about police chicks in Phoenix. See's some guy with tinted windows that they decided were probably darker than what was legal. Chased him through Phoenix at speeds in excess of 100 mph. Turns out he had some bs petty traffic warrent out for him. They could have killed someone but they were so proud of themselves for getting this guy. It was mind boogling they could put everyone else on the road in danger so callously for such little excuse. The episode was full of petty shit like that. I was actually starting to wonder if they had any actual real criminals in Phoenix.

  • ||

    i've filmed with COPS a few times. what most people don't realize, god knows i didn't, is that every incident you see on those shows ? - the person involved SIGNED A RELEASE. some of the best incidents we've had could never air because they person involved didn't sign a release.

    contrarily, when you see some guy acting like a total jackass and getting arrested or whatever on those shows ? they signed a release. mind boggling.

    as for the pursuit thing, most of the time people run from a minor offense, it's because of major shit - felony warrants, stolen property, in car, etc.

    however, different agencies can and do set different standards at what level of offense they need to have to pursue. Seattle PD for instance has very restrictive policies. So does Bellevue. Bellevue iirc (I had a trainee who was a lateral from there) doesn't authorize pursuits for stolen vehicles. so, the cmart criminals would presumably want to look at the pursuit policies where they commit a crime.

    This wasn't a vehicle pursuit, it was a foot pursuit, but it started (and sadly, ended) with the cop in a car chasing the guy on foot)

  • Agammamon||

    1. The bit about signing releases is pretty irrelevant. I'm sure the PPD officers werren't high fiving because they got their perp to sign a release.

    2. You're excuse for jumping on people with for petty violations - or in this case not even sure if its actually a violation, is if they run then they must have done something wrong and deserve to be chased? I know the law like to consider police dogs to be cops, I just didn't know that cops considered themselves to be dogs.

  • ||

    i have no idea how "petty" this violation is. it was apparently worth enough for the kid to think he could get money for it

    you frame improperly.

    people don't "deserve" to be chased.

    we chase because chasing leads to APPREHENSION.

    and without an apprehension (unless they had otherwise ID'd the guy), you can't make a case in the first place.

    while the chase had tragic results, it doesn't mean cops shouldn't chase people to apprehend them.

    i'll ignore your silly "dog" stuff

  • General Butt Naked||

    There is no civilian safety to consider when adrenaline boners are at stake, right officer?

    True story, I almost got hit by a ragin boner of a cop on a chase and spent two days in jail for the fucking privilege.

  • General Butt Naked||

    i've filmed with COPS a few times.

    Sure dunphy, sure. In between building the Mars rover and arresting DB Cooper, right?

    Tha fuck, dood?

  • ||

    dood. cops films with us all the fucking time.

    why is shit like this so hard for people ot believe? is that they are SUCH incredible nerds here that something as mundane as having COPS in yer car seems like some kind of grandiose claim? seriously?

    when i was in Maui, they had a policy they wouldn't let those shows film :(

    fortunately, my current agency has a great working relationship. a lot of patrol guys want no part in having COPS in their cruiser, and for those of us that do, it's almost a 100% gimme, you will get to ride a few shifts with them.

    it really amazes me that this kind of shit sets (some obviously bizarrely closeted) some people off. i work PAC NW

    cops LOVE filming out here - Pierce County SO, King County SO, Sno County SO, Tacoma PD, etc. etc. TONS of episodes.

  • Agammamon||

    No, no they don't. Just ask Sherrif Joe why he spends more on hiw PR wing than on his sex crimes department.

  • PapayaSF||

    Did you known that the colors of window tints are regulated? In California a red tint is illegal.

  • PapayaSF||

    known - know.

  • ||

    california regulates fucking EVERYTHING.

  • cw||

    More and more the NYPD is looking like the mayor's private army.

  • ||

    yes. because only private armies chase people who commit theft and then run from the scene.

    it's clearly not the job of the police to chase a theft suspect. i mean that's clearly beyond the scope of law enforcement authoritah.

    there's not any details to know what happened, but there are tons of scenarios that are entirely justified and what cops SHOULD be doing that would fit what we know. i've had dozens of foot pursuits. some, start out where we pull up and the guy bolts, and the initial chase is car chasing ped. usually, you pull ahead, other units are arriving too, so you can jump out and now you have units in front and behind , kind of box him in.

    the issue will be did the guy trip or something or did the cop push him with the car and if the latter, was it intentional, etc.

    but we have no way of knowing any fo that shit yet

  • Agammamon||

    Why are you chasing a guy who runs simply because you showed up? Is that illegal or something?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I must have missed the amendment prohibiting unreasonable chases.

  • Agammamon||

    I must have missed the one requiring citizens to stand and deliver whenever a police officer shows up.

    Heck I'd run if the cops showed up and I haven't done anything illegal. Of course I don't run away since I'm fat and lazy.

  • ||

    jesus christ. he stole some shit. so, the cops chased him.

    the result was tragic. are you questioning that he stole some shit? of course, the question as to the case, would be did the cops have facts/circs known to them that evidenced RS that he was stealing or had stolen the items in question

    (setting aside the issue that in some states the seizure occurs when the order to stop is made,a nd in others, when the person acquiesces. california is the latter. WA is the former. i can't speak for NY)

  • sloopyinca||

    the result was tragic.

    According to witnesses, the result was murderous.

    But as long as policies were followed, everything is OK, right? Of course, they haven't said what their pursuit procedures are for minor property theft. Curious omission by the NYPD there.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I guess "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to thieves, not cops.

  • sloopyinca||

    Let me tell you something, Tulpa. If a bunch of witnesses say they saw a person run over someone else, I guarantee you that would be before a Grand Jury, not a closed-door investigation by the suspect's co-workers.

    And "innocent until proven guilty" is for the courts, not the court of public opinion.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Missing property + guy running when he sees police = reasonable suspicion

  • ||

    according to the articles i have seen (granted, NY post sometimes a bit histrionic), he was literally caught IN THE ACT of stealing them.

    either way, your point stands. cops need merely RS to make a seizure.

  • cw||

    I'm angry that the NYPD wants the mother to pay for the damage incurred - especially since it is demanding the money before the investigation into who was at fault is even complete.

    I agree that, of course, it is the duty of police to track and, if necessary, pursue a burglary/robbery suspect, even if the reported theft is subjectively small. However, if investigators find the officer at fault, the funds to fix the damaged police cruiser should come from the NYPD's budget. Somehow, though, I doubt that will happen even if the officer is found liable.

    Why do police get the "oh well, shit happens; now others need to pay for our things" pass while other citizens do not?

  • Whahappan?||

    Because fuck you, that's why. Although, to be fair, it's not just police. Whenever a government agent fucks up, somebody else pays for it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Holy shit, the USA Toady site is fucked up.

    One more for the Do Not Click Ever list.

  • BakedPenguin||

    USA Toady

    Heh. Deliberate, or RCz law?

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Remember when the Chinese were the bad guys because they charged the family of the victim of a firing squad for the bullets?

    ... Hobbit

  • Flemur||

    They didn't charge the mom for anything - the letter was addressed to the dead thief (good riddance).

  • Ed||

    They're going to sue the family if the dead guy doesn't pay.

  • ||

    you did read this occurred in a housing project, right?

    quite often, when people live in such projects, as part of the lease, they are responsible for damages etc. incurred by tenants under them (there is usually a primary tenant)

    this could simply be a matter of the primary tenant being billed for her son's "causing damage"

    of course, the idea of billing her is atrocious and just fucking evil. some shit you just gotta write off.

  • Ed||

    I thought so too at first, but the bill is from the NYPD for the car, not from the Housing Authority for the decorative stones.

  • ||

    right, but again, without knowing more, it may be something under the lease. to me the why's and wherefore's for it are kind of secondary to the human indecency aspect.

    iow, assume that TECHNICALLY, under whatever procedure (civil damages resulting from crime committed on housing project property by tenant's subtenant) or WHATEVER... assume that it's technically ok to bill mom

    it's still morally obscene and somebody should have said "wait a second. no fucking way"

    dat's my thought on it

  • sloopyinca||

    Dead thief? He was alleged to have stolen the items. Last time I checked, it should have been up to a court to convict and punish him, not the pig who summarily executed him.

    Go to hell, you fucking scumbag. I hope one of your kids makes a mistake like minor property theft and there's a cop there to put a bullet in his head or to mow him down.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You do know the thief was 27 years old, right?

    Which is one reason I think the NYPD has no grounds to sue the family, as he is an adult.

  • sloopyinca||

    My comment was solely in response to his second paragraph. I addressed the first paragraph elsewhere on here with duncephy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    There's only one paragraph there. And he was either a thief or not a thief, regardless of what a judge or jury says. I'm leaning toward thief.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" is an unfortunate choice of words. "Not punishable until proven guilty" would be better.

  • ||

    innocent until proven guilty is a presumption. we have this same stupid wank constantly. all criminal defendants (which this guy never got the chance to be - since he died) are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.

    in this case, there are a lot of facts that are uncertain. but nobody has questioned that the kid did in fact steal the decorative stones (whatever the hell those are. and what are they worth, i'd like to know just for giggles).

  • sloopyinca||

    I meant two points, sorry. I was addressing his second point and the fact that he had not been charged or convicted of a crime yet, and it's the officers job to take him in, not to intentionally run over him with their car because he ran from them but otherwise posed no threat whatsoever...and lest we forget this was a very minor property crime, likely a misdemeanor.

  • ||

    I doubt it was intentional. He was probably just extremely stupid and incompetent, like most cops. Of course mistakes will happen when you give these retards weapons and cars.

  • sloopyinca||

    First, what are the NYPD's pursuit guidelines for vandalism? If these cops went beyond it, then they need to charge these officers with vehicular manslaughter. Second, were they running with their siren and flashers on? If not, same applies. Third, why is this not before a Grand Jury as opposed to this cop's co-workers? Fourth, fuck the NYPD. Those asshoes have been getting a pass for anything illegal or immoral since 9/11. Their officers routinely break laws the rest of us are subject to and are not held to account. Their union contract is a joke and their Commissioner is as corrupt as one could be.

    You people can talk about wanting California to slide into the ocean, but pound for pound, NYC is 10x as bad as it is out here. At least we have the farmers and oilmen of the Central Valley. That entire place needs to die in a fucking fire, with their mayo-selling hipsters and their corrupt police forces and their mayor that wants to be a king. Fuck em all in the asshole with a rusty chainsaw.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And they're only financially viable because they've got the largest counterfitting and money laundering ring in human history there.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Come on Fosdick, tell us how that little punk skell signed his own death warrant, and only got what he deserved.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    So, O.k., what's the real procedure when a cop says "let's go downtown for questioning?" Scene on Blue Bloods last night, NYPD
    detective grabs and steers a witness to the police car while saying the above. No charges announced (nor later filed). Do you have to go with cop, do you say "I want a lawyer?" I'm sure this "take you downtown for questioning" goes on all over the country and it is certainly coming to your door one of these days.

  • sloopyinca||

    Cops manipulate situations by not telling someone they are under arrest so the "civilian" can't exercise his Miranda Rights. They detain and question "civilians" without charge so the person cannot be given their full rights, and they can then charge the "civilian" with obstruction of justice and myriad other bullshit charges to exert pressure on the "perp" to plea down.

    The entire justice system has been put on its head with the advent of police unions, qualified immunity and separate systems of justice for criminal cops (internal investigation for them vs the Grand Jury for the rest of us). There will be no justice in America until there is a Constitutional Amendment outlawing pubsec unions and the separate justice systems.

  • THIS SUX||

    Technically, arresting someone requires disclosing miranda rights and the failure to give the Miranda warnings at the time of arrest makes any statement given inadmissible. However, the usual trick is to bring someone to the station for questions and not inform the suspect they are free to go whenever they wish. Unaware they are free to leave, an unwitting suspect could subject himself to a multi-hour interrogation where the police will try to get enough statements to create probable cause for arrest. At that point, the Miranda warnings are irrelevant.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Fine by me. The cops don't have any duty to educate suspected criminals in ways to avoid punishment for their crimes. I think Miranda was a stupid decision personally.

  • ||

    me too

    it would fine if legislatively enacted, but it is imo a perfect example of judicial activism, albeit for a good cause.

    but... it's PROCEDURE , which the ignorati derp derp at when it comes to stuff that protects cops etc. but procedure is procedure either way. part of the rule of law. i am free to think miranda is stupid case law. i am not free to ignore it.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    So you skirt it, undermine it and continue to treat "civilians" as suspects on two legs.

    Peel wept.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It was a tactic on LampersandO all the time.

  • ||

    good question. actually, it's mostly made up teevee crap. don't assume that just because every cop show has scenes like this, that it must happen that way.

    everytime somebody shoots in an airplane, the entire cabin blows out.; doesn't happen in the real world either.

    In regards your question. Cops cannot force a witness to come in for questioning, without a material witness warrant. i've done a few MW warrants in my day, but they are usually only done on serious cases with hostile witnesses.

    The reality is, as many semi-accurate cop shows portray, that in many locations, stop snitching behavior is such that NOBODY will give a witness statement. cops are not hauling witnesses in "for questioning" against their will.

    Please don't assume that because you see it on teevee cop shows it must be true.

    You can try to persuade somebody, and if they are a WITNESS, you can offer enticements for cooperation with questioning (do that with a suspect, and that's going to cause serious problems with the admissibility of any statement given by a SUSPECT)

    in brief, in some states, if you are a witness, you have to provide name, dob, etc. that's it. you can never be compelled to "go downtown for questioning" unless you are under arrest. period.

  • ||

    and despite what you see on teevee, people refuse to give statements all the time and the cops just walk away. most of the time we solve crimes, it's in partnership with the community. people call us, want to report something they've seen, want to see justice, etc. we can't MAKE people answer questions as a witness - a judge can. we can't

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It's usually not the witness that's being hauled in on the TEEVEE, it's a suspect.

  • sloopyinca||

    Glad to see I'm not the only person that noticed dunphy's shuck-n-jive move on that question.

  • ||

    no, read what i responded to:"hat's the real procedure when a cop says "let's go downtown for questioning?" Scene on Blue Bloods last night, NYPD
    detective grabs and steers a witness to the police car while saying the above."

    NOTE: "steers a WITNESS"

    emphasis mine

    that is what i responded to, the idea that cops can "steer witnesses" into coming downtown against their will

  • ||

    the question i responded to referred to "steers a WITNESS"

    note: WITNESS

    so, i offered my commentary on steering WITNESSES downtown for questioning

    the question was about witnesses. i responded in kind

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Here on H+R, you're supposed to read the mind of the person you're responding to. And if you don't, you're accosted by one of the resident Sophists who will point out what a despicable liar you must be to respond to what the person actually wrote.

  • ||

    right. somebody asks me about steering a WITNESS. since this person asked civilly and appeared to be asking in good faith, and i believe he did still, i responded.

    And I referenced relevant law, etc. as to questioning of WITNESSES.

    and I get accused of chicanery since i didn't address the issue of questioning SUSPECTs. the question was about WITNESSES.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    all of the witnesses said the cops ran the kid down intentionally.

    But did they swear on the magical Badge of TRUTH?

    I think we all know how much credibility a bunch of civilians have when they contradict the official police version of events. OFFICER SAFETY dictates the officers not expose themselves to the risk of heart attack chasing some incredibly fleet-footed young hoodlum down the sidewalk.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "stop snitching behavior"

    That's what they call it now, when a citizen declines to co-operate in the enforcement of evil and immoral laws?

  • ||

    laws like murder, armed robbery, rape, etc.

    sure.

    "National examples of violence due to "snitching" include Angela Dawson of Baltimore, who was killed along with her five children and husband on October 16, 2002, when their house was firebombed after she alerted police to illegal activities in the area.[7] Another example is Terry Neely of Phoenix, Arizona, a 46-year-old man confined to a motorized wheelchair who was tortured for days and then killed by Angela Simpson in August 2009.[8] A third example is Michael Brewer of Deerfield Beach, Florida, a 15-year-old who, in October 2009, was doused in rubbing alcohol and set on fire after assailants yelled, "He's a snitch, he's a snitch."[9]"

    continued...

  • ||

    "In Pittsburgh, Rayco Saunders was to be a witness against three men charged with plotting to kill him. But he showed up in court wearing a shirt that said "Stop Snitching" and refused to cooperate with prosecutors. Charges against the men were dismissed.[11]"

    etc.

    we are not talking about victimless crimes. we are talking robbery, murder, rape,etc.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    I'm on a military assignment in NY and I can't wait to get the fuck out of here. There are more cops on the roads than civilians, civil liberties are nonexistent, your income is fleeced by inept bureaucrats....it's a reeeeaaaal progressive Utopia. It's hard to believe that there is a state more fucked up than CA.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    At Fort Dumb, er, Drum? Stay away from everything, until you can unass the AO. Stay Safe!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    A letter dated Sept. 27 and mailed to her son seeks $710 for "property damage to a vehicle owned by the New York Police Department," according to New York Daily News. It also threatens to slap the family with a lawsuit if the claim isn't paid.

    Next stop, Asset Forfeiture!

  • Agammamon||

    Ima confused.

    The dead son was 27 - How can the parents be billed for the damage? I mean, I suppose the city can bill the deceased's estate, but since the guy was stealing stones I imagine that there's not a lot of money there.

  • ||

    see above. it could be a subtenant thang, since the incident occurred in a housing project.

  • sloopyinca||

    You are as ignorant on property law as you are on the double-standard. A tenant is not responsible for what a subtenant does once outside the individual unit they occupy. And even inside it, they are only liable to the landlord for the property itself. If you believe for a second anyone is financially responsible for the damages caused by their child of majority age for anything that happens outside of their rented property (which they are financially responsible to their landlord for whether the damage is caused by their child or a guest), then you are truly an ignorant soul.

    I'm not the least bit surprised.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It might be different if your landlord makes the laws.

  • sloopyinca||

    Bullshit. Even if the property is owned by a government entity, they cannot make someone financially responsible for the damage caused by anyone else over the age of 18 if that damage happens outside of the unit they reside in.

    This is the stupidest argument in the world. You're saying if I rent in a housing project, the state can hold me financially responsible for anything my adult children do once outside my front door.

    C'mon, Tulpa. You're smarter than this. Duncephy probably not, but I'm sure you are.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It doesn't seem right, but you know how the govt excludes itself from its own rules. Double standard and stuff.

  • ||

    tulpa, many of these leases fwiw (PJ ORourke has done some work on this) have all sorts of ridiculous restrictions,a nd even unconstitutional ones (like regarding gunz)

    AGAIN, this is just boring speculation, but it's hardly unreasonable to set as a general principle, that primary tenants are responsible for damage caused by subtenants. a lot of leases have such a provision, especialy because the landlord has very little jurisdiction over "overnight guests" etc. and the general principal is that you are responsible (damage, financially etc.) for the shit your subtenants fuck up

  • ||

    oh, and this keeps getting glossed over, but

    NOBODY BILLED THE VICTIM'S MOTHER

    the bill was sent to, and in the name of Tamon Robinson

    not his mother.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....bea96.html
    NEW YORK — New York City officials have apologized for sending a collection letter to a man who was killed by a police cruiser, billing him $710 for the damage his body did to the vehicle.

    Tamon Robinson died in April during a police chase in Brooklyn. Officers had caught the 23-year-old digging up paving stones, and he was fleeing on foot when he was hit by the cruiser.

    Then, last month, Robinson's mother got a letter from a law firm retained by the city. It was addressed to her dead son and demanded that he pay for the damage within 10 days.

    Robinson's mother tells The Daily News she is outraged (http://nydn.us/R2SSfN).

    A spokeswoman for the city's law department tells The New York Times (http://nyti.ms/Wz0avI ) the notice never should have been sent.

  • sloopyinca||

    AGAIN, this is just boring speculation, but it's hardly unreasonable to set as a general principle, that primary tenants are responsible for damage caused by subtenants. a lot of leases have such a provision, especialy because the landlord has very little jurisdiction over "overnight guests" etc. and the general principal is that you are responsible (damage, financially etc.) for the shit your subtenants fuck up

    A landlord can only hold a tenant financially responsible for the piece of property their tenant leases, i.e. their unit. To pretend for a second the NYPD can send a bill to the mother of an adult for damages because the city owns the piece of property she rents is among the stupidest things I've read in a while.

    And IRT those ridiculous restrictions like no gun policies, any landlord has a right to set rules their tenants can voluntarily agree to or they are free to live elsewhere. I had a landlord with a no drinking on patios rule. It's perfectly legal to drink on a patio, but I voluntarily agreed to the restriction. The same goes for people that voluntarily agree to not have a gun in their apartment. Or are you completely unaware of the concept of private property rights and/or free association?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    But that's damage to the rented property itself. I don't think a private landlord could enforce a lease holding co-tenants responsible for another tenant's damage to the landlord's other property.

  • ||

    which alleegd double standard are you talking about here, tulpa. or r u just funning with me?

  • sloopyinca||

    which alleegd double standard are you talking about here,

    Maybe he's talking about the double standard that you have acknowledged exists and claimed to be happy about. Maybe it was that one.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm sure your dept is an oasis of honor, but we've heard time and time again about govt in general (and that includes police depts) trying to have a double standard for their criminal acts compared to those of civilians.

  • ||

    tulpa, as i am sure you may know, imo most of the alleged examples of double standards trotted out here - aren't.

    but in brief, yes. in some respects, we are judged more harshly and have a double standard that works against us

    in other respects, we have a double standard that works for us

    and some need to be "qualified". for example, yes - we get qualified immunity. "civilians" don't. otoh, we are required to and expected to make arrests. "civilians" aren't.

    i've cited , for example, a judge who sentenced a cop to over 20yrs iirc for assault, who had no felony priors and saying the penalty was harsh because cops deserve harsher penalties.

    glossed over

    most of the alleged double standard claims here have to do with UOF. but they don't use analogous situations with noncops. ime and based upon MOST (not all) aspects of case law, (and i have given examples) a 'citizen' effecting an arrest has MORE force discretion than a cop

    but that's tangent we can bounce down some other day :)

  • sloopyinca||

    i've cited , for example, a judge who sentenced a cop to over 20yrs iirc for assault, who had no felony priors and saying the penalty was harsh because cops deserve harsher penalties.

    Actually, you claimed that a "civilian" would have only gotten 4-5 years and it was an egregious example of a judge holding him to a much higher standard. Now, we can set aside the fact that most people would have been charged with attempted murder and that there were seriously aggravating circumstances like the fact that he broke over a dozen court orders when he went to her house and stalked her until he threw her out the window, and stick with the fact that even his attorney expected him to get just under 20 years.

    And for every case you bring up (often without citing), there's one like this coming from your state.

  • sloopyinca||

    And by the way, as to your "no priors," this is from the article that goes into greater detail than any of the ones you linked to.

    FTA: She asked the judge to consider not only the counts of a first and second-degree assault, which McCarthy denied, but also 10 counts of violating a protection order, to which he pleaded guilty after his arrest in November 2010.

    He had already pleaded guilty to the 10 counts prior to the commencement of the assault (not attempted murder, btw) trial, so he had 10 prior violent crimes that he had plead guilty to, shithead. If that's not a sentence enhancer, I don't know what possibly could be.

    By the way, the judge took time to note the "life of service" the officer had given and the "good life" he had lived. Hardly the words one would use when giving them a harsher than usual sentence.

    Sorry, but your solitary example is more full of holes that the John T Williams was after your brothers in arms got done with him.

  • sloopyinca||

    I know, I know. All the cop was doing in the above case was prowling around the windows of teenage girls. I'm sure this is a case where professional courtesy (i.e.: the double standard) was the right call.

    Fuck you, duncephy. Your lies and bullshit claims without any supporting evidence beyond one case I caught your lies on are stale and no longer taken seriously. You're a laughingstock on here and do not care about justice and/or equality under the eyes of the law.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Jesus H goatfucker

    The police car was damaged after a chase that ended when it collided with Ms. Dobbinson’s son, Tamon Robinson, denting the front of the car and killing him.

    Holy shit, that pig behind the wheel must have been terrified when the ghost of Melvin Purvis seized control of the vehicle.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    On Friday, the law firm handling the collection effort said it had formally dropped the effort. Paul J. Browne, a spokesman for the Police Department, said his agency did not send out the letter and referred the matter to the city’s Law Department.

    “We don’t know any instance where we send letters like that,” he said. “I’m not sure how it came out.”

    Kate Ahlers, a spokeswoman for the Law Department, said the notice had been sent in error after her department received a referral from a unit of the Police Department.

    Dizzy now.

  • sloopyinca||

    If they each just point fingers elsewhere long enough, the press will have something else grab their attention and the whole thing will go away.

    Either that, or there's so much unaccountable behavior going on in the NYPD and the city's legl department that they don't know what their people are doing and don't have policies in place, which to me means they need to fire every single person and start from scratch.

  • db||

    This reminds me of a story my GF told me. She was in Italy for a conference, and a group of folks had gone out to dinner. The (hadndwritten) bill was sizeable, and as the host was examining it, he noticed a rather large charge, at least 50 Euros, with an Italian notation that he could not decipher. Asking the waiter about it, he was told that it read "If it goes, it goes." The waiter said, "I guess it didn't go" and canceled that charge.

    The NYPD, like most gov't bureaucracies, is engaging in "if it goes, it goes" here. I guess it didn't go this time.

  • ||

    they sent it to the dead person. it was more likely a clerical oversight than anything

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I suspect that it will cost the city more than $710 to collect the $710. So I find it hard to believe that the city is doing this for the taxpayers' sake. This sounds a lot more like "we're going to buttfuck you so you know who's Da Boss".

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Collection efforts have been abandoned.

    Tamon Robinson is still dead.

    All officers involved went home to their families.

  • sloopyinca||

    All officers involved went home to their families.

    Which, according to every police account I've ever read, is what matters most.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    For some of the families, that's probably not a good thing.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    JUSTICE FOR TAMON!

    QUARTZ THIEVERY IS NOT A CRIME!

  • sloopyinca||

    Is the punishment death? In this case it was, and according to the witnesses, the cop intentionally ran over him.

    I'm not saying it's a slam dunk case, but it's a case for a Grand Jury, not a closed-door meeting of the cop's co-workers.*

    *Co-workers that have a track record of not charging for excessive force allegations, regardless of how egregious they are.

  • ||

    hey man, what if he upset the feng shui? you say "it's only some decorative stones"

    i say: "those decorative stones they really tied the project together"

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Ha - dood iz dead, lets make with the funny!

    Note to self - stay out of this guy's jurisdiction.

  • ||

    fwiw, a lot of wanking has gone on about what possible legal theory could justify billing the MOTHER of the adult accident victim ...

    except just for the record (and I made this mistake too), the mother was not billed. The bill was in the name of Tamon, and mailed to Tamon's adress. The son. They live together, mom opened the bill, and ... this shitstorm ensued. But NOBODY billed mom. NY officials are saying the bill to (the deceased) Tamon obviously shouldn't have been sent out, and they have apologized.

    Imagine how awful for Tamon's mother - first her son is killed in a traffic collision, THEN (presumably days- weeks later), she received a letter in her son's name billing him for cop car damage. Disgusting. The city apologized.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....bea96.html

  • sloopyinca||

    The city apologized.

    Just like they did to Kelly Thomas's parents, John T Williams' family, Amadou Diallo's family, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    Just because someone apologizes for it doesn't negate their despicable act, shithead.

  • ||

    He didn't say it did.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Where's mine?

    /Abner Louima

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Ever see the 1st season LyO episode where off-duty Lt. Van Buren shoots an unarmed kid in the back? The higher ups want her fried, and the other cops and DAs want her excused.

  • sloopyinca||

    Are you sure that was LyO and not a documentary on the NYPD (or any other department in America for that matter).

  • ||

    i have that episode on DVD.

    so...yes

  • The Late P Brooks||

    QUARTZ THIEVERY IS NOT A CRIME!

    Let me help you With that.

    NOT A CAPITAL CRIME.

    Nor, for that matter, is "attempting to flee".

  • sloopyinca||

    The story we've all been talking about on here where the NYPD executed the guy on the side of the road two days ago has taken an interesting turn. Turns out the cop that shot and killed him, according to witnesses without warning, has been named in two civil rights lawsuits that ended in substantial payouts ny the city.

    This is why people should not settle these suits with cities. It ends in the people being compensated, but it leaves the criminal cops on the streets so they can continue their serial abuse.

    I hope the NYPD gets destroyed here and this guy ends up in prison. This is becoming all-too-common.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Turns out the cop that shot and killed him, according to witnesses without warning, has been named in two civil rights lawsuits that ended in substantial payouts ny the city.

    Men like this are all that stand between us and teh ANARCHY!

    Why do you hate society?

  • sloopyinca||

    Why do you hate society?

    Because society accepts this kind of behavior.

  • ||

    speaking of foot pursuits and policy...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwztEkJ8hQ

    fwiw, i agree with capt hillman!!!!!! the sheriff's rep is a copocrat pussy

  • sloopyinca||

    Um, who was talking about a foot pursuit? The case at hand is about a person on foot being pursued by a cop in a vehicle...and the cop using that vehicle to (according to witnesses) intentionally mow that petty theft suspect down.

    To a reasonable person, a foot pursuit meant the parties are on foot.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Maybe it was a Flintstones police car.

  • sloopyinca||

    Question: Fred Flinstone's car had a fixed front and rear axle and a rigid-frame chassis that did not articulate. How did he make turns in it?

    Fucking cartoons are bullshit.

  • sloopyinca||

    Besides, if it was a Flintstones Police Car, they would have also charged the kid with animal cruelty and/or assault and battery of a police officer.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And why didn't the fucking Eagles just fly over Mount Doom and drop the ring in?

  • sloopyinca||

    Because Vick probably would have thrown it to one of the Orcs.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1 QB Rating

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    BECAUSE then Frodo wouldn't learn a lesson

  • Tulpa Doom||

    WTF. Seth McFarlane is doing a Flintstones reboot?

    And Cosmos too? Because when you think of Carl Sagan the first cartoon character who comes to mind is Peter Griffin.

    Please God let him not be allowed to do a Watership Down remake. There must be something which he is not allowed to ruin.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I hope the NYPD gets destroyed here and this guy ends up in prison.

    When Scalia finds out about this, there'll be Hell to pay!

  • ||

    heck, i tell ya . HECK!!

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Let he who is without sin drop the first stone.

  • ||

    and let it be... decorative!

  • Solanum||

    Ok, here's some good news for a change.

    St. Charles County sheriff's deputy gets 5 years on burglary charge

    A St. Charles County sheriff's deputy was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for breaking the law while he and other officers were at a Middletown, Mo., home to apprehend a wanted meth cook.

    In August, a jury found Christopher E. Hunt, 38, guilty of felony burglary and misdemeanor assault and property damage after a three-day trial that pitted police officer against police officer.

    The charges stemmed from the Feb. 5, 2009, arrest of Phillip Alberternst, who was wanted on several felonies related to meth-making. Hunt and three other members of the St. Charles County Regional Drug Task Force were assisting members of the East Central Drug Task Force — which serves Warren, Audrain and Montgomery counties — with the arrest.

    In arguments during the trial, Montgomery County Prosecutor Nicole Volkert said officers had agreed to try a consensual search because they didn't have a search warrant, but when Hunt showed up later, he kicked in a porch door and beat "a helpless, naked man" who was not resisting. The burglary charge stemmed from him going into the home.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why was the burglary a felony, yet him beating the helpless naked man only a misdemeanor?

    Also, it took 3-1.2 years for them to get it to trial and as you can see from the article, the thick blue wall is standing by their man:
    Hunt plans to appeal his case, and he remains free after posting 10 percent of a $100,000 bail.

    St. Charles County officials tried to write a check for the 10 percent, but Circuit Judge Keith Sutherland would not allow it. "I don't know whether it's normal or not, but we're supporting our people," County Executive Steve Ehlmann said later. "People don't understand what a tough job these guys have."

    Stay classy, St. Charles County.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Newest Obama debate excuse: Romney had a cheat sheet.

    Unclear how that made a historically gifted orator look like a blithering idiot.

  • 0x90||

    That wasn't even the best one. Some geniuses were entertaining the notion that Romney had a cochlear implant or some such, and was being fed his lines, literally.

    A position which you'll notice, if adopted, and if later proven to have been false, leaves one in the uncomfortable position of just having told everybody that Mittens is far more intelligent than your guy. The extent to which this is lessened, when the conspiracy only involves a cheat sheet, I have no idea, but the principle is still the same.

    And regarding Obama, my impression was different than yours; I thought he was far quicker, with far fewer "and uhh, ahh, umm" moments than normal.

  • db||

    I would expect more hesitation from a person who was being "fed" lines than from a person who was generating them himself.

  • ||

    So, O.k., what's the real procedure when a cop says "let's go downtown for questioning?" Scene on Blue Bloods last night, NYPD

    You say, "I do not consent to being questioned. I do not consent to going to the police station. Are you charging me with something, officer?"

    Make them make it a custodial situation.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Depends on the situation.

    But for political grandstanding, George Zimmerman would have certainly been better off cooperating with police rather than going full ACLU and forcing them to arrest him for murder.

  • sloopyinca||

    Cooperate? You mean like go to the station with the cops after the incident and answer every question they asked him? Or do you mean what he did after Sharpton and the race hustlers descended on Florida and put out a bounty on him, causing him to go into hiding for fear of his life?

    Dude, there are a lot better examples to use in place of a man that didn't hide anything until his words started getting twisted in public by the people he freely spoke with after the incident.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Selection bias. Most of the time when someone cooperates with the cops and thereby gets off without a hassle we don't hear about it. This was exactly one of those cases until the race hustlers got involved (and the race hustlers didn't give a shit whether he cooperated or not)

  • sloopyinca||

    Selection bias by who? I was just pointing out the flaw in your example.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It's not a flaw at all. He talked to the cops and was let go after questioning, despite there being a dead body with his bullet in it at the scene.

    What happened weeks later was not a result of the fact that he'd talked.

  • ||

    i see tons of such examples daily. they NEVER make a court docket. where people talk to me in the field, even as a suspect, and it benefits them.

    high priced attorneys, pundits, etc. look at something. they look to court cases. they see time after time - person talks to cop, person gets fucked over, ergo talking to cop fucks you over

    what they can't see is they cases where the person wasn't fucked over, because... those cases of course don't MAKE it to the court docket (almost always).

    one of my faves was the guy who worked as a defense attorney for a living. i had PC for him for brandishing a firearm at a 20 yr old. i arrested him, took him down the precinct. he had a great self defense case. he knew, as do i, that WA also strongly respects self defense.

    post miranda, he wrote out his own statement as i questioned him, which is something my suspects do all the time, and i released him at the precinct with a referral.

    prosecutor declined because... SELF DEFENSE claims were too strong for them to believe they could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    *if* he had not talked to me, they wouldn't have that valuable other side of the puzzle

  • ||

    happens at a street level too, where we never even refer the case. i just like this example, because defense attorneys tell people "don't talk to police" (and i've had a few of them clarify why... off the record), but they know it CAN help you and in his case it did so.

    also, gary ridgway. green river killer -eventually caught by DNA. did a great job at fooling cops. guilty as hell, questioned, but managed to allay suspicions quite well

    countless similar cases of guilty people talkijng to police in the field and talking their way out of an arrest, or towards a different suspect, etc.

  • Copernicus||

    "The city’s medical examiner ruled the death accidental,"

    This is the sentence that caught my eye. I would love to see the "reasoning" that allowed an ME to determine the cop's intent.... Maybe as long as the perp isn't run over on the sidewalk??

  • LTC(ret) John||

    No multiple tire tracks, back and forth over the deceased?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement