|
Crash Damages: Should the City of Pensacola help pay for damages to Jeff Smith's property?
Comment: Yeah this has been an on-going problem with law enforcement around this area. they just do not like to doing dui's! there have been several incidents where i've seen officers on their "off-duty" jobs, allow obvious drunks drive home. in their own words, the deputies at the beach, officers of the ppd state "i don't do dui's!" "i've got more important things to do like domestic violence and others routine calls!" this sort of response does not surprise me one single bit since they themselves indulge in thwe same sort of activity. additionally, bar owners proudly proclaim that theyare responsible but does not want the officers they "hired" to "hurt" their business! it is little wonder dui's continue to be a problem in this area! here is a lil' note for you guys, try this...try an "investigation" by sitting out in a unmarked van/vehicle outside these "establishments" (especially downtown or on the beach) and see how many people walk out staggering and get into a vehicle on a good thursday, friday, saturday night! then ask the patron before they get behind the wheel, why they want to endanger their and others lives? you'll be surprised at the amount and how little the management, owners, and law enforcement care about their social responsibility towards the public! by H
Comment: no, i don't think the city of should help, i do think that the cop that turned the drunk loose should pay the entire bill, even if it means he has to take a loan out and pay for it. just maybe it will make other cops think twice about turning drunks loose after stopping them. by georgia
Comment: Yes, the city should pay for damages. After all the motto on police cars state "To Protect and Serve" They failed to protect the citizens of this city by there negligence. The Officer should be held responsible also and be FIRED. The City trains these officers to tell the differance on how intoxicated one is and its obvious this driver was well above the drinking tollerance and yet he was still let go to drive home. What if the driver Killed somebody? it could have happened, but thank God it didn't. by Charles
Comment: If the city is not liable for the cost, then the officer should pay. by Danny
Comment: A simular incident happened to my fiance a couple of months ago. His truck was parked in our driveway and the guy hit the curb, went airborn and knocked the mailbox down the road hit my fiance's truck (it was back into the driveway)with such force that it knocked the truck into the tree beside the driveway and therefore broke the frame. Both sides of the truck was damaged beyound repair. Thank goodness the guy was not hurt, but he gave his word he would pay my fiance for his truck but then he wouldn't talk with my fiance. The policeman gave him a ticket for reckless driving and didn't arest him. He got off scot free and my fiance had to put out the money for another vehicle. These policemen know what they are doing when they give a ticket for reckless driving when they are in the position to know it is more to the cituation that that. by Rose
Comment: Homeowners? Nofault? All the 'churches' in this city?
Jeff shouldn't have a problem getting help. Seems a lawyer would jump all over this. by LOLA
Comment: Even though it was an error in judgement on the officers part, an employee of the city, the root cause was the drunk. Make the drunk pay for the damages, it's a no brainer. by Grant
Comment: I think Thomas Fletcher should be held responsible for the damages and reimburse Mr. Smith for the expenses he has incurred as a result of the incident. by Carla
Comment: Yes they should help pay...it was the law enforcement officer's bad judgement to let the guy go! What if it had been a person the guy hit and injured or worse...killed! I think the law enforcement agency should take part in helping the gentleman fix the damage as well as the driver. If the driver had been arrested then the damage would have never occurred. by April
Comment: Jeff Smith should NOT have to pay for a city employee's mistake. by Melanie
Comment: I hate to say no but if "yes" then you open up a can of worms. The Supreme Court thought this one through. The judgement of the officer is tough to question as they seem to have to make some heavy decisions on a regular basis. Can we hold them to a level of perfection that is unobtainable? No. But they should check insurance and if there is none, impound the vehicle, write a ticket and get the driver's DL suspended for driving an uninsured vehicle. The real issue here is we don't enforce insurance like we should and thus the innocent get the bill. by Dick
Comment: You said on your report that the officer was but on suspension without pay, let them use the money he would have been paid to help. Also, what about the guy that did the damage let him help pay for it and if he does not have the money let him work it off some how. He needs to be held responseable also just like the officer. by Jacqueline
Comment: Thomas Fletcher should be entirely to blame for his own actions. He should make full resititution to Mr. Smith for the damages caused when he chose to drive drunk!
Why should tax dollars be used to help Mr. Fletcher get out of paying for the damages he caused? Let him sell off property or get a loan to do the right thing for what he has done. by Elizabeth
Comment: There were two people involved.
Tthe drunk driver and the neglegent officer. The officer and the drunk driver should help with Jeff Smith's damages. Not the city. by Judith
Comment: I fill for Mr Smith,but he should have full coverage insurance on the cars and his home owners will pay for the fence and he can sue Mr. Fletcher for any deductables by john
Comment: Why won't our local law enforcement departments support MADD's mission by having dedicated DUI Task Force officer's. These officers sole job is to interdict drunken drivers and remove them from the roadways prior to them causing injury to person or damage to property. It would be just like having a nightime traffic unit. It works during the daytime why not at night too? As recent as a couple of years ago all our local deparments had dedicated DUI officers. Now we only have our local sheriff's department that has one DUI officer. Do you know what we found out back then?? We had higher conviction rates, officers who were able to provide expert testimony which is very important when it comes to prosecuting repeat offenders and less alcohol related wrecks within the city limits. What does it take to reinstate DUI patrols, a case similar to this one except with a fatality. The city should step up the moral ladder and assist Jeff Smith. I am sure he pays his taxes, give him some of it back. by Edwin
Comment: No one in my family has ever been in law enforcement. That said, I believe we as a people must accept that our law enforcement, under those we elect, will use their best judgement in every situation. Every situation our officers face on a daily and regular basis is different, challenging, and requires judgement. Officers cannot always make the "perfect" judgement nor should be expected to. They do their best with what they have in considertion of experience, number of officers on the force, equipments supplied to them, and so on. I am sorry for what Mr. Smith is faced with, however, the city nor police department should be liable. I only hope Mr. Smith did what most do and had insurance for his property.
Very respectfully,
Rich Wilson by Rich
Comment: I feel that the city had an opprotunity prevent this crime from happening. This poor family was asleep at home and law abiding. They pay their taxes and for that they should be entitled protection and justice from the City they live in. It was one police officers poor decision but he does represent the City he work for and there for liable for it's mistakes. by Tracey
Comment: i think they should what if it would have been a life bcause of an officers neglect i thaught fla was a zero tolerance state for dui by chris
Comment: i think if officer cramer had done his job correctly then mr.smith would have no damage to his property.the ppd needs to be held responsible and pay for this mans damages afterall the damages was occured due to the neglect of one of their officers.thank god noones life was taken because of his neglect. by donna
Comment: If not the city, then the officer's own liability insurance. He HAD to know that the driver was intoxicated and didn't stop him from driving! by Fran
Comment: they are at fault by tammy
Comment: An unfotunate situation yes, but we have laws for a reason.
Comment: thepoliceofficer was wrong in the firstplace lettingthe person go knowing he was drunk. by debra
Comment: The city should not pay; Officer Cramer should have his pay garnished until he personally pays Mr. Smith's insurance deductible. Maybe this will help him exercise better judgment in the future. by Kay
Comment: That's a bunch of crap. The city is responsible for the officers they have on the road. by Bryan
Comment: The city should be thankful it was a fence and some cars that were hit and not a playground full of children. The city should step up and pay for the damage! by Chris
Comment: Absolutely! by michael
Comment: Absolutely not. The person that hit the vehicles should pay....garnish his wages and put a lein on him or his family. by Jane
Comment: The officer didn't use very good descretion. Did Fletcher have to take a field test/walk the line. What did the officer base his judgement on. I think the 3 week suspension was appropriate, however the city should take responsibility for the damage caused by the officers lack of action. Why are govt agencies never held accountable? by Leslie
Comment: The city or the Sheriffs Department need to step up and pay for this. The officer needs to be held accountable for not doing the job the taxpayers are paying him to do. by Tracy
Comment: Fletcher is the real criminal. Smith needs to get a small claims suit against him. Smith should also sue the bar who sold Fletcher the alcohol and allowed him to drive away drunk. by Natalie
Comment: If they had the choice to let him go they should be responible for the choice they made, he could not have got drunk in that short of distance or time, PAY THE MAN. by Gary
Comment: They should make the person who did the damage pay no matter how long it takes . Also he should never get a drivers license again.If I have to have Ins. and pay extra for no fault , he should not be aloud to drive . by Robert
Comment: How much money does the city and county get from each and every D U I that are issued. They should pay for all the repairs to his property and vehicles. by William
Comment: I'm sure if the driver had hit the mayors property, or another public officials property, there would b some kind of settlement. The Mayor is ultimately responsible for the Police Dept. and their actions. Maybe ask the Mayor what would have been done had the driver hit a school bus full of children...."We're sorry, but we cannot compensate you for the loss of your child"?? by Chad
Comment: Jeff Smith would not have any damages if it was not for the CITY EMPLOYEE not doing their job because they didn't want all the paper work. The city should at least do this much because Jeff is a tax paying american and was doing nothing wrong. (Just Sleeping) by Eric
Comment: Of course they should. I have been following this story for a while. It was such a blantant disregard for the law, which that officer was out there to uphold in the first place. They should be happy all they have to do is write him a check. What if Jeff would have been on his driveway at that moment?
I understand the law says Jeff can't sue. Does that mean that the city CAN"T reimburse Jeff? What a crock. by Shawn
Comment: Of course they should. I have been following this story for a while. It was such a blantant disregard for the law, which that officer was out there to uphold in the first place. They should be happy all they have to do is write him a check. What if Jeff would have been on his driveway at that moment?
I understand the law says Jeff can't sue. Does that mean that the city CAN"T reimburse Jeff? What a crock. by Shawn
Comment: Fletcher should be the one to pay for the damage he done to Smiths property. If the police officer is held accountable then so should the bartender and waitress for serving the drinks. Fletcher chose to drink then he must be responsible for his own actions. by Tina
Comment: Of Course! because it was a "Flagrant Misjudgement" on
the Officer's part. Or lets say "Officer Discretion". He had plenty of Red Flags. Wait
till you see the Dash Board Cam Video! Remember "To
Protect and Serve" I know the Insurance will give him
a hard time since there was no Bobily Injury. He told
me he had full coverage on 2 of the vehicles and the
3rd had liability. The Homeowners will only pay for
the fence & concrete. No motorized vehicles. $500 ded
on each. Thanks COP PPD you did good in this Fishing
Tournament. "Catch & Release" good job. now pay the
prize $$ to Smith!!!
I thought Florida had a Zero Tolerance Law...Oh, OR is it at the Discretion of the Officer????.....nice!
I am surprised the Police Union INS has not stepped up on this one to help Smith. Why to we pay TAXES anyway???
by Thomas
Comment: Yes, Sworn to Protect and Serve not Catch & Release!
Zero Tolerance by Jeff
Comment: Yes, thats wht the Officer was there for. by Hannah
Comment: They punished Officer Cramer, so he was at fault,and considering he works for the city the city is responible for the damage. by Jonathan
|
