ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
insertreality
Deputy Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
Ridgeway Bar No. 16102
IN THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SUPERIOR COURT
SYINTHZS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHICKEN10135,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: No. RSC-CV-2926
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSATORY
AND PUNITIVE RELIEF
DEFENDANT CHICKEN10135 by and through undersigned counsel hereby files its
Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to PLAINTIFF SYINTHZS civil complaint for
punitive and compensatory damages.
REPLY TO STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Admitted.
2. PLAINTIFF’s action of “swerve[ing] into my left lane” admitted, PLAINTIFF’s
reasoning for doing such is without knowledge, therefore denied and demand
strict proof thereof.
3. PLAINTIFF’s action of returning to the DEFENDANT’s location is admitted,
PLAINTIFF’s reasoning for doing such is without knowledge, therefore denied
and demand strict proof thereof.
REPLY TO VENUE
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY TO PARTIES
1. Without knowledge, therefore denied and demand strict proof thereof.
2. Admitted.
REPLY TO TORTS AND PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. DEFENDANT need not issue a reply, however, to the extend anything in this
paragraph can be used against DEFENDANT, same is denied and demand strict
proof thereof.
2. DEFENDANT need not issue a reply, however, to the extend anything in this
paragraph can be used against DEFENDANT, same is denied and demand strict
proof thereof.
3. DEFENDANT need not issue a reply, however, to the extend anything in this
paragraph can be used against DEFENDANT, same is denied and demand strict
proof thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
I. SUMMARY OF EVENTS
1. DEFENDANT at the time of the cause of action was on-duty as a Ridgeway
County Sheriff’s Office Deputy.
2. DEFENDANT was in a full Sheriff’s Office uniform, clearly distinguishing him
as a Deputy Sheriff.
3. DEFENDANT at the time of the cause of action was a passenger in a fully
marked Ridgeway State Police car being driven by an unnamed party, who was
also a fully uniformed and sworn State Police Trooper.
4. DEFENDANT and the unnamed party, at the time of the cause of action, were
driving toward the City of Palmer in the aforementioned State Police car.
5. The unnamed party, who was operating the State Police car, had all emergency
signaling equipment activated. This includes a standard lightbar flashing
blue lights and a siren, which the State Police vehicle is equipped with.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. The State Police car wherein the DEFENDANT and unnamed party were occupants
attempted to pass PLAINTIFF with all the aforementioned emergency equipment
still being activated.
7. PLAINTIFF then moves from the right shoulder of the road, traveling above
the posted speed limit, and swerves across the road and the path of the
State Police car, despite the State Police car attempting to create space
between themselves and PLAINTIFF.
8. As PLAINTIFF begins to intentionally turn in the path of travel of the State
Police car, the unnamed party driving the State Police car can be seen
turning away in an attempt to avoid a potential collision, but this effort
is unsuccessful.
9. As a result of the PLAINTIFF’s intentional, erratic, and unforeseeable
swerve in front of the State Police car, the State Police car is then “de-
synced” and is flung onto an embankment on the side of the road, nearly
striking a tree and immobilizing it.
10. If it were not for PLAINTIFF’s erratic, and unforeseeable swerve in front of
the State Police car, the State Police car would have not been “de-synced”
and flung.
11. DEFENDANT and the unnamed party after being “de-synced” and flung onto the
embankment, exited the State Police car, and began to fire their department-
issued weapons toward PLAINTIFF.
12. PLAINTIFF then drives away from the State Police car and DEFENDANT, failing
to surrender, while driving well above the posted speed limit of 50 SPS.
13. PLAINTIFF turn makes an illegal U-turn and drives back to the scene.
14. PLAINTIFF then drives towards DEFENDANT and the unnamed party at over 70
SPS, 20 SPS over the posted speed limit.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. DEFENDANT and unnamed party were standing in the road as a response to
PLAINTIFF’s actions, ensuring there would be no continued threat to
themselves.
16. PLAINTIFF can then be seen increasing the speed of his vehicle and drive
directly toward DEFENDANT and the unnamed party, forcing DEFENDANT to move
to avoid being struck.
17. As the PLAINTIFF charges DEFENDANT and the unnamed party, the DEFENDANT and
unnamed party continue to fire their department-issued service weapons
toward PLAINTIFF fearing imminent bodily harm or death, and being lawfully
permitted to do so.
18. As a result of the DEFENDANT and unnamed parties use-of-force, PLAINTIFF’S
vehicle becomes immobilized and explodes.
19. PLAINTIFF is then struck by DEFENDANT with DEFENDANT’S department-issued
taser and is forcibly taken into custody by DEFENDANT.
II. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DEFENDANTS CONDUCT
1. PLAINTIFF to be successful in a suit against a government official for 1 R.
Stat. § 3114 “Misconduct” PLAINTIFF must allege and prove multiple elements.
2. The primary element of 1 R. Stat. § 3114 requires PLAINTIFF to prove “an act
relating to his office but constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his
official functions, where a reasonable person with his training, expertise,
and experiences should know that such act is unauthorized […]” 1 R. Stat. §
3114. Emphasis added.
3. However, DEFENDANT did not exercise an unauthorized official function,
instead, DEFENDANT was following state law.
4. DEFENDANT was in a fully marked State Police car with blue flashing lights
and an audible warning device, thereby classifying the vehicle as an
“Emergency Vehicle” pursuant to the Right of Way Act. See Right of Way Act.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. PLAINTIFF as a private citizen operating a motor vehicle is bound to comply
with the Ridgeway Vehicle Code.
6. PLAINTIFF did violate S.V.C § 7.12, which requires motor vehicle operators
to “pull aside” and “yield” to emergency vehicles.
7. Furthermore, by PLAINTIFF’S own admission, was the sole operator of his
motor vehicle and did intend to operate his vehicle in the manner he did,
which caused the State Police vehicle to be desynced and immobilized.
8. The Vehicular Assault Act permits anyone in the state to use lethal force
against motor vehicle operators in cases which “intentional vehicle strike
or desync causes the immobilization of the vehicle” and where the individual
who caused the desync does not “immediately surrender”. See Vehicular
Assault Act. Emphasis added.
9. Further, persons using lethal force under the act have no duty to retreat.
Ibid.
10. PLAINTIFF, instead of yielding on the shoulder of the road to the passing
State Police car, decides to, at the last moment, swerve across the travel
path of the State Police car, causing it to desync and become immobilized.
11. PLAINTIFF’S decision on where to yield was not reasonable by any means and
was the direct and sole cause of DEFENDANT’S subsequent action.
12. By PLAINTIFF fleeing and not immediately surrendering to law enforcement
after desyncing DEFENDANT permitted for the DEFENDANT and unnamed party to
use lethal force. Ibid.
III. REVIEWING USE OF FORCE
1. When reviewing if a law enforcement officer’s use of force is justifiable,
the court must consider various standards.
2. But first, let’s establish what type of review the court must conduct when
deciding if an officer’s use of force is justified or not.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. “All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force —
deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other
"seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a
substantive due process standard”. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
(1989).
4. Now we must review, what is “objective reasonableness” and how is it
applicable here?
5. “The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers'
actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must
embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to
make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a
particular situation.” Ibid. Emphasis added.
6. This court when determining if use of force is justified must consider the
perspective of the officer, not 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) citing Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 20-22.
7. Now the court must review if DEFENDANT’S conduct was objectively reasonable,
DEFENDANT is asserting they were given the circumstances, at the time,
DEFENDANT was faced with.
8. DEFENDANT was responding to an unknown incident, and while responding, was
in a marked State Police car which was traveling with emergency lights and
audible warnings activated.
9. The DEFENDANT then sees PLAINTIFF cut across their path of travel, and from
DEFENDANT’S perspective, did so intentionally with the purpose of desyncing
the State Police car.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. DEFENDANT then in accordance with the Vehicular Assault Act, uses lethal
force as is permitted by law when the individual who caused the desync and
immobilization does not immediately surrender. Ibid.
11. DEFENDANT pleads that they responded in accordance with state law to what
DEFENDANT believed was a vehicle which intentionally desynced DEFENDANT,
causing immobilization of the vehicle DEFENDANT was in.
12. The court cannot play “Monday morning quarterback” when deciding if an
officer used reasonable and lawful force.
13. DEFENDANT is a sworn law enforcement officer, who is often forced to make
split second decisions to preserve the rule of law, his safety, and the
safety of others.
14. DEFENDANT at the time observed a clear and intentional violation of the
Vehicular Assault Act, which permitted DEFENDANT to utilize lethal force.
15. Furthermore, DEFENDANT asserts that the force was reasonable and at multiple
times during the encounter, DEFENDANT felt a sense of imminent danger due to
PLAINTIFF’S reckless conduct behind the wheel of his well over one-thousand-
pound vehicle.
16. DEFENDANT reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses.
ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HERBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of May, 2024, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was served by electronic means to PLAINTIFF SYLTHZS and PLAINTIFF
COUNSEL SAMAGONOUS, ESQ.
Dated this 31st May, 2024.
/s/ insertreality
Insertreality
Deputy Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of
Justice
