Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Idaho rancher killed by deputies over a wounded bull.

It's interesting that they're suing in state court, rather than federal.

$500K really isn't all that much money, especially considering that somebody died and how highfalutin y'all say the attorney is.

From the Idaho Statesman...

"The claim, filed April 26, seeks $500,000, the maximum damages allowable under Idaho law."

Making a claim through the state tort claims act is a condition precedent to any suit. $500k is the maximum claim under that act apparently. There will undoubtedly be a 1983 suit in federal court later.

Interesting statistic, Idaho has only 1.6 Million people yet 61 Cops out of 3000 were killed in the line of duty.

Thats 1 in 50. Seems a dangerous place Idaho to be a LEFO

Big rural state. Lots of driving and lots of chances for MVAs.

Get the story straight dumbazz

Idaho has been a state 125 years.
61 deaths total

LE was 3146 in the year 2008

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2008 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, the state had 117 law enforcement agencies employing 3,146 sworn police officers, about 206 for each 100,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_Idaho

Follow the link below to read when, where, and what cause

Line of Duty Deaths: 61
Aircraft accident: 3
Animal related: 2
Automobile accident: 6
Bomb: 1
Drowned: 2
Gunfire: 36
Heart attack: 2
Motorcycle accident: 1
Stabbed: 2
Struck by train: 2
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 1
Vehicular assault: 1

https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/idaho

The gunfire statistic is somewhat telling. Idaho troopers used to have to use Sam Browne style closed flap holsters so many did not survive the showdowns at high noon on Main street. Since Idaho allowed troopers to choose their own holsters the survival rate went way up.

Why do you hate America so muck F U C K F A C E........

Clearly you don't have a point to make and are only here to bash Americans and piss people off.....

I'm honestly at the point to where if Ric doesn't do something about this f u c k i n g troll I'm leaving....

Pretty sure I'm not the only one either....ya hear that BIN?
Wouldn't want your lucrative post count to slip now would you....

Stevil, we'll make donations to keep your internet running if we need to. Just keep up the good work.

FieldGrade,

The only time I see one of his post is when someone quotes him. Otherwise he's on "ignore". You might give it a try.

Why would you not have him on ignore?

F U C K Y O U ya F A G A S S "Austin" bike cop......

Why FG, what a mean, untrue thing to say.

Does this mean we're not friends?

Can you explain the "is a condition precedent to any suit" part? Because I'm familiar with several Feseral suits that didn't originate in State Court. Is that an Idaho thing?

Something you have to do before you can file suit. No suit of any kind has been filed yet. A claim merely has been made. It will go through the claims commission I assume and he may eventually be given a "right to sue letter".

You see, the doctrine of sovereign immunity says that we can't sue the state. The king is immune from suit and you can only sue the king if says you can sue him. So, to that end, states have set up tort claims acts that allow you to make a claim is you are harmed by the negligence of a state agent. Some states have claims commissions that you must go through in a quasi judicial process before you can sue, and some just allow you to go straight to court if you don't. The Feds do the same thing. If a US Marshall runs over you in his car, there is a claims process instead of going straight to court. If one goes through it and the claim is allowed, then it ends there.

Now, a federal suit in is a matter of one king allowing you to sue another king when your civil rights and due process were denied by an agent of the state under color of law. It is called a 1983 suit because it is found in a section of the US code entitled Section 1983.

I haven't been involved in too many 1983 suits so I not sure if going through the claims process where it exists is a condition precedent but I can see it being good strategy. Get the state on record and get sworn testimony from them. Make the stake out a position and a defense before filing federal suit. But it might be a condition precedent as that federal courts apply the law of the state in which the act or omission occurred in most instances.

Any idea why they'd do state court first? Why mess with $500K and show your hand when there's so much more available in federal court?

Well, like I said, it might be a condition precedent. Secondly, you know what your hand is going to be, make the state show its hand, then they are locked in to a position.

Yeah, but that works both ways. It also shows your hand and locks you into at least some parts of your story. I've been a defendant in federal court on a case that was tried twice and on the second time around the "know their hand" definitely benefited both sides. The cops are already locked into their story, as they've reported and been interviewed multiple times already. So at this point the only people that could get locked into something would be the Yantis family.

I dunno, but having been at the defendant's table the second trial is certainly more comfortable.

The Yantis side is already locked in. All those witnesses have given sworn statements already.