![]() Fisher, using the police radio, radioed Murphy to direct him to make the call, and Murphy called, using an unrecorded police line (6) in order to control the situation and protect the public (a typical responsibility of officers acting in their official capacity), two uniformed officers and marked police cars were stationed outside the 7-11 and (7) Sgt. In addition to the fact that the dispatcher and officers were on-duty and in uniform 2 (excepting Reeve, who wore other clothes belonging to the police department): (1) the defendants concocted the prank in response to Haines' earlier call to report suspicious vehicles 3 (2) all material used to effectuate the prank was Torrington Police Department property, including the M-16 rifle, the blanks, the trench coat, the mask, the police cars, the radio, and the dispatch telephone system (3) the plan was created and agreed to by all officers while in the police station working on training exercises (4) the dispatcher, Murphy, called in his official capacity to warn Haines of potential danger (5) Sgt. Finally, " ection 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties of care arising out of tort law." Baker v. "The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant in a § 1983 action exercised power 'possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.' " Id. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the claimed deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. § 1983 was to provide a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights by a state official's abuse of his position while acting under color of state law." D.T. Section 1983 was enacted "to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails." Wyatt v. Defendants contend that after the event was over, everyone including plaintiff had a good hearty laugh over the practical joke among good friends. Defendants claim that the gun was not discharged until after plaintiff recognized Reeve before becoming prone on the ground, when he rose up and threw a cleaning rag at Reeve and exclaimed, "Nice try, Mouse!" Defendants contend that the blanks were fired away from plaintiff after he recognized Reeve. Plaintiff claims that Reeve pointed the M-16 at him and discharged the weapon when he was told to get on the ground-before he recognized that it was Officer Reeve in a robber costume. ![]() At some point the M-16 was discharged although there is a factual dispute about when that happened. Reeve then ordered plaintiff to get off the telephone and to get on the floor. ![]() However, he forgot that the gun's safety was engaged and the gun would not operate when he attempted to pull the trigger. When he entered the store, Reeve was supposed to shoot off the M-16 shortly after entering the store. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |