Criminal get's settlement - Page 2

Criminal get's settlement

This is a discussion on Criminal get's settlement within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by soflasmg I'm no LEO but I've seen and heard of very effective "traffic stops". Some call them ambushes some call them car ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: Criminal get's settlement

  1. #16
    Member Array S.O. Interceptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by soflasmg View Post
    I'm no LEO but I've seen and heard of very effective "traffic stops".

    Some call them ambushes some call them car jackings. Depends on the venue and intent I guess.

    If LE can't figure out how to surveil a subject, take 2 vehicles and 4-6 guys and safely overwhelm and contain a subject and a subjects vehicle chop chop, then I must be missing something.

    3rd world bad guys and LE/Military do this all the time.

    No knock raids with lots o' personnel and equipment only seem to justify lots o' personnel and equipment.


    We can easily force a vehicle to stop, and we can do it while keeping ourselves safe. I said it's not in the interest of public safety to do so.

    You're using the techniques used by criminals(you said so yourself, you said "bad guys" do it all the time) and 3rd world countries as examples of what you want to see used on the streets of America? Are you serious? Sure, they might be effective at stopping the criminal, but how exactly does this help keep the public safe?

    Do you really want to be in the next lane sitting in your car with your family when 6 armed guys jump out of a car and "car jack"(your words, not mine) a possibly armed and dangerous felon? Nope, I couldn't see any risk to any innocent people in that scenario.

    Over all I would say that you are indeed missing something if you can't grasp the simple concept that it's safer for the public to arrest someone in their home than it is to do it in the middle of a public road.

    I know some people have trouble understanding this, but as previously stated, there is NO mention of this being a no-knock warrant anywhere in this story. About 95% of warrants served are standard knock-and-announce warrant services.

    Do you really think that it would take fewer personel to conduct high risk traffic stops on dangerous criminals than it does to conduct a home warrant service? If so, then you would be wrong. If we adopted the Soflasmg method of warrant service, we would need a lot more people, a lot more vehicles, and cooperation from hundreds of people assisting us in keeping innocent passers-by away from the take down area in order to make the traffic stop, and probable pursuit to follow, safer than the home warrant service.
    Last edited by S.O. Interceptor; June 13th, 2007 at 10:19 AM.
    Rest In Peace Dad! I love you!!!

  2. #17
    Member Array soflasmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    216
    Point taken SO.

    Every situation is different.

    Enter a house where there is a party going on? Things are already out of control.

    Take down a guy driving in traffic in a car? Same thing.

    I was honestly thinking of following the guy until a suitable location to stop him was found vs. a house full of people. Apples and oranges admittedly.

    When I see a newspaper story like this, then a bunch of "served 'im right", or "that's what you get" comments I get a little fired up.

    Assuming all the facts of the story are correct (ha ha) It sound like the LE guys that went into the house were asking for trouble when there was not apparently an imminent threat to the public.
    The Marshmallowist

  3. #18
    Member Array Arisin Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    452
    Here's something published yesterday on this case:

    MASSILLON A man shot four years ago during a drug raid led by Massillon police will be paid $425,000 by the city's insurance.

    On Monday, Massillon Law Director Perry Stergios released a copy of the city's settlement with Shay Neace as requested by The Repository under state public-records law.

    Perry Township police officer William Watson shot Neace during the raid in March 2003. The raid occured in the 1300 block of Tremont Avenue SW and was conducted by Massillon police with help from the township.

    About 20 people were attending a party inside the home when it was raided. Watson encountered Neace, who was holding a gun, on the second floor. In prior court testimony, Watson said he grabbed the gun and struggled with Neace before firing three shots.

    In court papers, Neace said he never pointed a gun at anyone. He also said he didn't know Watson was a police officer and tried to push Watson's gun away, but stepped back and put his hands up when the first shot was fired.

    A grand jury determined that the officer took reasonable action.

    Neace, now 27, is paralyzed from the chest down. He and his mother, Michelle Neace, sued the city and township in U.S. District Court.

    The township's insurance carrier has agreed to pay Neace $100,000, according to documents obtained last week.

    Under terms of the settlements, none of the defendants admit any wrongdoing.

  4. #19
    New Member Array eray2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1
    I just stumbled upon this thread while using Google and felt compelled to add some information as it simply makes me crazy that people are so willing to pass judgement quickly and with media hyped info as their only knowledge base. Also, thank you to those who looked further into the holes in the story. I'm from the area, I know said criminal personally and I have been in the apartment that was raided albeit not on this day or even when occupied by the same renter. Mr. Neace did not in fact live in this home nor were the Perry Twnshp or Massillon PDs there looking for him. From what I understand of the situation, and I will admit there is always three sides to every story "his side her side and somewhere in the middle lays the truth, Neace was armed not because he brought a weapon to the house party but because he took a weapon from one of the idiots at the party who was discharging it into the air in the back yard. The comments stating that the home should not have been raided during a house party were correct. The shots that paralyzed Neace occurred in a very small upstairs bathroom after the bathroom door had been kicked in, it was not as if he were in the living room with full view and understanding of what was happening when it did. The last thing I'd like to touch on is the fact that he's being illustrated as a criminal. Was Neace young and stupid? Absolutely. Will he tell you that himself? In a heart beat. But he wasn't a hardened criminal pushing heroin to children, he was a young man still learning and making mistakes, ultimately one that cost him the use of his legs and a lot of the functioning of his arms. I also checked his record just to make sure I wasn't stating incorrect information. He had two disorderly conducts in his entire life, and had a warrant out for criminal trespassing when the shooting occurred, more proof of an idiot young man not a hardened criminal but hey I am biased, no sense in lying about it. He was an overall good guy and is an even better man now that he's grown. Before he was shot, he would take the time to drive me to the elementary school to pick up my little sister when I was running late to get her and walking. Now he gives my children rides in his wheelchair. I guess my point in this rambling in the off chance someone reads it is... Yes, he was in the wrong, no, he didn't deserve to pay the price he did, and he wouldn't have gotten a settlement if the truth weren't laying in the grey areas in between.
    drift likes this.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,956
    I said it constantly in the past and i still hold to it.
    No knock warrants,, and entries into dwellings by busting the door fown while yelling police should never have been authorized in the first place.
    They are illegal for one. Obsenly dangerous for officers and occupants, and short of rescuing kidnap victims or hostages are not a justifiable entry method.
    You dont have to believe a train is coming. Itll run over you anyway.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array michael t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    outback Ky
    Posts
    4,566
    Isn't the first thing police do when they kick the door is announce "POLICE ...WARRANT"

    Yes and so do bad guys dressed like police . I don't believe in no knock warrants . If happens at my house .I would consider it a Home invasion . Then will likely be dead. Because police had wrong address and I defended my family .
    In 70's 2 of us serves warrant .If a known baddie We go with 4 . At least one be in full uniform . I said uniform not looking like he just came back from patrol in Afghanistan.
    Ghost1958 and msgt/ret like this.
    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy.

    come visit me at my home www.bersachat.com or http://www.metroarms1911forum.com

    1911's forever !!

  7. #22
    Distinguished Member Array Crescentstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio Suburbs
    Posts
    1,299
    It isn't about right or wrong or the defendability of the suit. It is about the bottom line dollar. It is cheaper to settle than to fight it at trial. The insurance company would rather pay that amount than to spend more to try the case, which would probably cost more. Ask me how I know this..........
    CodeSection likes this.
    "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left"

    Clint Eastwood

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array Crescentstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio Suburbs
    Posts
    1,299
    Quote Originally Posted by eray2 View Post
    I just stumbled upon this thread while using Google and felt compelled to add some information as it simply makes me crazy that people are so willing to pass judgement quickly and with media hyped info as their only knowledge base. Also, thank you to those who looked further into the holes in the story. I'm from the area, I know said criminal personally and I have been in the apartment that was raided albeit not on this day or even when occupied by the same renter. Mr. Neace did not in fact live in this home nor were the Perry Twnshp or Massillon PDs there looking for him. From what I understand of the situation, and I will admit there is always three sides to every story "his side her side and somewhere in the middle lays the truth, Neace was armed not because he brought a weapon to the house party but because he took a weapon from one of the idiots at the party who was discharging it into the air in the back yard. The comments stating that the home should not have been raided during a house party were correct. The shots that paralyzed Neace occurred in a very small upstairs bathroom after the bathroom door had been kicked in, it was not as if he were in the living room with full view and understanding of what was happening when it did. The last thing I'd like to touch on is the fact that he's being illustrated as a criminal. Was Neace young and stupid? Absolutely. Will he tell you that himself? In a heart beat. But he wasn't a hardened criminal pushing heroin to children, he was a young man still learning and making mistakes, ultimately one that cost him the use of his legs and a lot of the functioning of his arms. I also checked his record just to make sure I wasn't stating incorrect information. He had two disorderly conducts in his entire life, and had a warrant out for criminal trespassing when the shooting occurred, more proof of an idiot young man not a hardened criminal but hey I am biased, no sense in lying about it. He was an overall good guy and is an even better man now that he's grown. Before he was shot, he would take the time to drive me to the elementary school to pick up my little sister when I was running late to get her and walking. Now he gives my children rides in his wheelchair. I guess my point in this rambling in the off chance someone reads it is... Yes, he was in the wrong, no, he didn't deserve to pay the price he did, and he wouldn't have gotten a settlement if the truth weren't laying in the grey areas in between.
    After reading this, I fell better about the legality of the shoot.........
    "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left"

    Clint Eastwood

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    "God is in the details" (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe) ("On restraint in Design", New York Herald Tribune, 28 Jun 1959)
    "Dad! The Cops are here looki'n for you again!"

    A family is a terrible thing to waist.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

    We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
    welder516
    Decorah Eagle Cam

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array Stetson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Augusta,Maine
    Posts
    8,274
    Who said crime doesn't pay.It did in this case. Not right !

  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array drift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Crescentstar View Post
    It isn't about right or wrong or the defendability of the suit. It is about the bottom line dollar. It is cheaper to settle than to fight it at trial. The insurance company would rather pay that amount than to spend more to try the case, which would probably cost more. Ask me how I know this..........
    Simple risk analysis. Insurance companies aren't tasked with morality.
    CodeSection likes this.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Ineffective criminal?? I think not!
    By fernset in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 11:32 AM
  2. Mayor Bloomberg Announces Final Settlement in Groundbreaking Litigation
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2008, 09:13 PM
  3. Another brilliant criminal
    By deadeye72 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 14th, 2008, 06:20 PM
  4. Amazing- a reasonable insurance company settlement.
    By Squawker in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2007, 01:50 AM

Search tags for this page

bill watson perry twp oh shooting

,

criminal gets settlement

,

is perry stergios a attorney

,

man shot by security gets settlement

,

michelle neace of massillon, ohio

,

perry stergios

,

pousoulides

,

shay neace massillon

,

shay neace shooting

Click on a term to search for related topics.