Suburbanites Saving Seats At Pritzker: The New Dibs?
Could Palin Put Kirk Over the Top? More Importantly: Would She?
Oprah's Leaving Chicago?
Strollergate 2009: Doubts Raised
Abortion Notification Law Cleared
The Chicago City Council voted 35-4 yesterday to award a $2.5 million to the family of Juan Salazar (pictured left), a 14-year-old shot and killed by Rafael Balbontin (pictured right), an off-duty police officer in 2002. The Council reasoned it was less than would be awarded if the case went before a jury. But here's the first thing that makes this strange: Salazar was shot during a home invasion of Balbontin's parents' home.
Officer Rafael Balbontin was in the basement of his parents' Northwest Side home when two men wearing yellow ponchos and masks and armed with a pellet gun knocked on the door and forced their way into the house.Juan Salazar, 14, and his 26-year-old accomplice were apparently looking to steal cologne sold by the officer's father at a local flea market.
After hearing his mother shout out in Spanish, "They have guns," the officer's father ran upstairs and attacked the offenders with a mop.
Officer Balbontin followed them out of the home in the 3000 block of North New England and fired six shots. One of the shots struck his father and another struck Salazar in the back, killing him.
If this was where things stopped, you'd think Balbontin would have a good case of self-defense, no? But this is where the second thing that makes this case weird comes in: in 2006, Balbontin was convicted for stabbing his wife to death and injuring his mother-in-law when she tried to intervene. Of course, the debate in the Council boiled down to the rights to defend one's home to home invaders versus the fact Salazar and his accomplice were fleeing the scene. Aldermen Jim Balcer (11th), George Cardenas (12th), Ray Suarez (31st) and Bernard Stone (50th) voted against the settlement and Cardenas said, "If you're a robber, it's very simple: You left your rights at the gate," while Stone added, "I still don't think we should justify a home invasion." Meanwhile, Don Shapiro, attorney for the Salazar family, said, "They were tucking tail --running away as fast as they could. . . . There was no reason to shoot and kill this young boy. Police officers are supposed to arrest people. They're not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner."
We get both sides of the argument here, but something tells us Balbontin's current whereabouts have something to do with the ease with which this settlement was reached.
Image courtesy Fox 32, via Sun-Times
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If the robbers had just forced themselves into the house without being armed then the cop used excessive force. But that is not what happened. Armed suspects were fleeing the scene of a crime after an armed holdup. This is why cops have guns. Why should they even carry them if they aren't suppose to use them?
Settlements like this just foster more deadbeats filing BS lawsuits against the City. It is time for the City to grow a pair and take some of these cases to trial.
So ignoring the legitamacy of whether the guy had the right to fire or not (I say he did), there is the quiestion of the city's liability. If I work at Home Depot and kill a guy when I'm off work, nobody sues Home Depot. And Home Depot has enough sense to laugh at anybody who would, because Home Depot would have no liability.
I'm with dopplerd. The city needs to stop rolling over.
Did I read correctly that he also shot his father?
I have little sympathy if this happens in the house but they were out of the house *running away*. Anyway, too bad it wasn't the 26 year old instead, considering he probably goaded the 14 year old into helping him.
Yeah, that struck me, too.
Perhaps a lawyer can weigh in: Does this type of settlement potentially protect the city from having to reveal embarrassing details about its police department at trial? Not saying conspiracy type things, just details in general.
Cardenas said, "If you're a robber, it's very simple: You left your rights at the gate,"
What about when you're back outside the "gate"? do you get those rights back?
if a suspect is fleeing the scene of the crime and pose no further threat to the wronged party (and provided they haven't caused any harm), is it OK to shoot at them with the intent to kill while they flee? Considering this guy also shot his father at the same time, he probably wasn't shooting with the intent to only slow them down.
But that being said, I don't agree with giving the family money in this case. Their kid was robbing someone's house. Deal with it.
You guys are really brutal.
Cardenas said, "If you're a robber, it's very simple: You left your rights at the gate,"
What about when you're back outside that "gate"? Do you get your rights back? Is it OK to shoot at a fleeing suspect who presents no further harm (and hasn't caused any thus far) with the intent to kill, and I assume "kill" because the wild way this guy was probably shooting (he shot his father too), he didn't seem to be aiming to slow down. Also there's this: After hearing his mother shout out in Spanish, "They have guns," the officer's father ran upstairs and attacked the offenders with a mop.
Officer Balbontin followed them out of the home in the 3000 block of North New England and fired six shots.
So he fought them off, they left and apparently he then went to get his gun. That's kinda problematic if they left the premises and he still went to get his gun.
But all that being said, I don't agree with giving the family money. Their kid was robbing a house. Deal with it.
Good to know that our leaders have a clear grasp of the law.
There's a number of missing pieces here, the father getting shot being a big one as it seems to imply that the officer wasn't being discriminate with his fire.
I think Matilda's on to something, it's the city paying off a case that smells funny.
You guys are really brutal.
Well fwiw, I'm just being flippant with my comment on the 26 yr old. I would prefer an outcome where nobody was hurt at all.
I don't know about anyone else, but the story doesn't add quite well. It seems like there's missing pieces to the puzzle.
It seems like Rafa has some mental issues. Maybe it's just me though.
I'm not an attorney but a CPA, and had to learn about tort (a civil wrong) liability in an employee-employer relationship. There is a doctrine called Respondeat Superior that states an employer (in this case the City of Chicago) can be liable for an employee's torts committed within the scope of employment. Generally, an employer is not responsible for intentional torts (which this would be) but merely negligence. However, where the use of force is authorized (as it obviously is with the police), the employer is reliable. I don't think the fact that the officer was off-duty would be enough to say that the actions occurred outside of the scope of employment.
That all being said, I don't believe that the City should have bent over backwards for a criminal. Haven't they heard of negotiation, maybe start out with a low-ball offer like $10K or even $50K?
Few things...
Yes, the person was fleeing the scene but as I look at it, here is a cop who sees someone with what he believes is a gun. We have no idea (as far as I can tell) whether the Officer discovered it was a pellet gun before or after the shooting. We also don't know if the gun was left at the scene. Is it possible the cop was thinking "I need to get that gun before it is used again..." What if it was a real gun and the next day it was used in another robber shooting a 12 year old girl? There'd be people bitching the cops don't do enough to get guns off the street. I'd applaud a cop for getting the gun off the street if that was the case.
Second, this officer shot and killed a 14 year old kid. You don't think that is going to have some kind of impact on him and his mental well being? Maybe the day he killed that kid something snapped in his head. I don't have time to look it up but there are plenty of studies that show the mental trauma that law enforcement officers go through after shooting someone. That is exacerbated when the offender is killed. I'm not making excuses for the guy killing his wife, but his problems might have started the second he pulled that trigger.
Is it possible the cop was thinking "I need to get that gun before it is used again..."
"And to do so I'll shoot wildly and indiscriminately in an alley and plug my old man while I'm at it. Nothing will stand between me and unarming a criminal, even my old man's back."
Suffice to say I don't think the cop was firing to save everyone else. I think he was just pissed that two guys were in his house and trying to rob it and wanted some sort of revenge.
dopplerd, you said "This is why cops have guns. Why should they even carry them if they aren't suppose to use them?" But he was off duty... in that moment, shouldn't it be irrelevant that he was a cop? I'm confused about why people can sue the city for something a cop did while off duty at home.
(WHOOPS, I just saw LP Yuppie's comment. Nevermind.)
As a cop he had the right to carry a concealed weapon when off duty. I also stated that if there was no gun used in the commission of the crime the shooting was not justified. In an ideal world the criminals would have been apprehended without injury, but we are a long way from living there.
I think that the family and lawyer of the deceased is using the fact that the cop went berserk and killed his wife as leverage for settlement even though the two events are unrelated. The city does not want to be put in the position of defending a murderer.
As for why the city is responsible for off duty actions see Lincoln Park Yuppie's post above.
I think that the family and lawyer of the deceased is using the fact that the cop went berserk and killed his wife as leverage for settlement even though the two events are unrelated. The city does not want to be put in the position of defending a murderer.
We have a winner. This is little more than a family working the justice system to hit the jackpot.
I meant to type liable and not reliable. Probably should eat some lunch.
Working as a lifeguard for the city as a teenager, I can tell you from the city settlements with families that there will always be settlement money. I wasn't a lifeguard, I was a babysitter. No matter how much the city is not at fault.
Leaving your rights at the gate? I like it, but isn't that a little Texas-style?
If anyone wants sound philosphy on the penal system for criminals, hardened and petty alike, read The Children of Men.
I have read somewhere (will dig it up if questioned) that generally Chicago police shoots more people than for instance NYPD (NY being four time bigger and NYPD having over 35 thousand officers) which indicates poor police training as resolving to gun fire is the EASY WAY out of any situation. Judging by number of settlements paid out by city of Chicago very costly.
The cop should have known that shooting a perp in the back, while he is already outside of the house will be very difficult to position as self-defense.
I wonder how long before the city realizes that proper police training is a good investment. Jody Weis was supposed to clean up the department but apparently he is still struggling with the old CPD mentality where police actions are always justified...
Interesting read from the Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-071205cops-htmlstory,0,2906787.htmlstory