Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
2,382 characters extracted
—
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CHEXBURGER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-640
PRESIDING JUDGE: HON. HECXTRO
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff
v.
BATTALIONGAVIN
Defendant
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Comes now the Defendant, BattalionGavin, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby answering
the civil complaint brought forth against them.
GENERAL DENIAL
Unless expressly admitted below, the Defendant(s) denies each and every allegation that the Plaintiff has
brought forth in their Complaint.
INTRODUCTION
1. Admitted
2. Admitted
JURISDICTION
3. Admitted
4. Admitted
PARTIES
5. Admitted
6. Admitted
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Admitted
8. Denied. Referencing the video provided by the Plaintiff, Mr. Burger, was seen striking several
vehicles at the following timestamps: 0:27, the Plaintiff strikes the rear of the Unmarked vehicle,
being operated by BattalionGavin, the Defendant, to which he flees the scene of. 0:46, the
Plaintiff strikes a green Lancaster, to which both parties drive off from. 1:03, the Plaintiff
sideswipes a parked RCSO police cruiser in the RCSO HQ parking lot. 1:15, the Plaintiff crashes
into the back of the same aforementioned green Lancaster. 1:35, the Plaintiff once again puts
himself into an accident with the green Lancaster. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to yield for an
emergency vehicle with their lighting systems activated when Mr. Burger was coming around the
corner in the parking lot. The accident with the undercover police vehicle was as a result of
desync due to the green Lancaster cutting off the police cruiser. Seeing since it reads “or striking
other vehicles.” R.V.C. § 7.02, the several accidents caused by the Plaintiff would constitute a
valid arrest under the eyes of the law, therefore making the arrest valid.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
9. Admitted
10. Denied. “Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an
arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical
coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The
Defendant acted within his right to utilize force to make an arrest within his official capacity.
RELIEF
The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/RyanJSyndicate
RyanJSyndicate
Assistant Solicitor General; Office of the
Solicitor General
R.W. Bar #18106
Document record
File size
105.6 KB
Uploaded
Aug 23, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
Aug 23, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
dorkjacob
Notes
RSC-CV-640 Defense Reply — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/1MeBjpls)
