On a More Serious Note...

While reading my Sunday newspaper today, two stories struck a chord with me. The first one told about two El Dorado County Sheriff Deputies suing a woman over a shootout last year. Her son killed his father (her husband) and deputies were called to the scene, who were ambushed by the son. He shot three deputies plus a police dog before being killed. Thankfully the deputies and the dog all survived and, for the most part, recovered from their injuries.

Now two of the deputies are suing the widow and the estate of her dead husband for $8 million, saying the family was negligent in controlling their adult son. The third injured deputy, who also was the canine officer with the injured police dog, declined to join the suit.

First of all, I admire those in law enforcement immensely. I am thankful that we have them to serve us and protect us. But this suit just seems wrong. Here are the quotes in the Sacramento Bee article from McGeorge School of Law professor Julie Davies saying that she feels the deputies situation falls under what is called the "firefighter's rule":

"With the firefighter's rule, the reasoning is that they voluntarily agreed to undertake these risks – they know going in that fighting crime or fighting fires is dangerous. Additionally, they are paid well to encounter the risks. They're given a whole packet of benefits to compensate them if they're injured, so allowing them to sue citizens would almost be like double taxation. If people worry that they might be sued by police officers or firefighters, they might hesitate to call on them for help. And that would be bad public policy."

I couldn't agree with this assessment more. We need to take the bad guys off the streets, and we need the law to not favor the criminal as much as it does now. But is it right to sue this woman, who likely had her hands tied by the law in trying to commit her adult son anyway. Every time I hear of a police officer getting hurt, or worse killed by someone, I wonder how they can be better protected. A lawsuit like this is certainly not the answer.

Switching topics completely, the other article dealt with a Nevada City business owner trying to stop a Beach Hut Deli from opening in Downtown Nevada City because it happens to be a franchise. There are good businesses and bad businesses. There are good franchises and bad franchises. How does the fact that just because a particular business is a franchise makes it bad? This franchise will continue to fit the "mom & pop" atmosphere he says the town was built on. It will be owned by a couple from nearby Grass Valley - they have lived there for over 40 years. Judging by the article, it sounded like this is the first and only business that they have owned. And they are keeping with all the historical standards that are required by downtown businesses. All I can say is welcome them to town, and if you don't like the place, don't go there!