Pantagraph.com | News | Records: Settlement in Ruch case was $750,000

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Replies wrote on Oct 31, 2006 7:16 AM:

" Zoned and too bad, excellent points. However, it will not happen to us, and it should not happen again, as most law abiding citizens will pull over when instructed to by an officer of the law. Remember, had he pulled over inititally, there would be no story. Jose, you are a moron. Last I checked, it has been a while since a cop shot and killed a kid in Bloomington-Normal. Seems to me that would be pretty big news, no matter who was shot. If you truly work for SF, than I am embarrassed to be your co-worker. "

To too Bad wrote on Oct 30, 2006 10:38 AM:

" Absolutely!! We need to come together and make sure this changes something. Perhaps a community oversight commission would be a good idea. "

To zoned wrote on Oct 30, 2006 9:56 AM:

" Our community needs more people who think the way that you do. "

zoned wrote on Oct 29, 2006 9:41 PM:

" Is it possible that, for in any event in your life, a series of multiple decisions can be made in a few seconds that unfortunately result in an accidental death? Blame can be shared, and there are lessons to be learned, but ultimately this is sad part of our fragile life. In the big picture, I would not dare judge parents, the police officer, or Nathan having never had to walk in thier shoes. I will leave God to judge. Instead of blame shifting, our community needs to be more compassionate with the understanding that it could happen to us. "

Too bad wrote on Oct 27, 2006 2:43 PM:

" It seems as if everyone is missing the point. Will this happen again..You bet, because nothing is being done about it. Wake up city council and actually read all the transcript and hear the people. There are good law enforcement officers out there but we the people need to help them be even better by providing a way to review their actions when problems arise. Let this not be in vain. "

To Jose wrote on Oct 26, 2006 10:48 AM:

" Ok - then do something about it instead of whining. As others have said, it DOESN'T take money to hire an attorney on a contingency fee basis. Instead of just complaining that nothing ever happens, then make sure it does next time instead of making this into a racial incident about this case. "

Re: Jose wrote on Oct 26, 2006 10:38 AM:

" He's right. If this guy had been black or hispanic, had this guys prior criminal history, was driving with suspended and also drunk then everyone would have been ok with how the officer reacted. But because the officer treated the son of a wealthy builder the same way as anyone else this has been blown up. "

jose, the suprv? wrote on Oct 26, 2006 7:13 AM:

" of the Janitors? "

Jose, a Supv from SF wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:58 PM:

" It is a racial incident. This happens on a daily basis to minorities no one has the money to sue. If the driver had been poor and black then nothing more would have happened since it nevers does. "

To Jose wrote on Oct 25, 2006 3:29 PM:

" Turning this into a racial situation is not necessary, and not relevant "

Yes, please wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:03 AM:

" let's all just blindly follow the police and do whatever they say, no matter what happens. "

Frodo Baggins wrote on Oct 24, 2006 6:03 PM:

" Jose might be the only minority on here but the rest aren't all white... many sound like they are pinkos and reds for not supporting law enforcement. "

To To Jose wrote on Oct 24, 2006 10:39 AM:

" That's because everyone on here is white and i'm the ONLY minority. "

To Jose wrote on Oct 24, 2006 9:15 AM:

" If other families let it go - then that's the other families' faults. You don't need money to take action. Attorneys work on contingency fee bases all the time. This stayed in the news partially because the Ruchs didn't just let it go - they wanted the truth. Other families could do the exact same, they choose not to. The only person making this into a racial issue seems to be you. "

PR wrote on Oct 24, 2006 9:04 AM:

" Jose, you sound like the racisit to me.......... Maybe you should read more news --there are alot of minorities in the news. This is just a sad situation "

Jose, a Supv from SF wrote on Oct 23, 2006 8:47 PM:

" If this didn't happen to a rich white boy nothing more would have been in the newspaper, just the first article and nothing more. This happens day in and day out all across the US to minorities and hardly ever has a second or third article ever been written. Yet let it happen to one rich white boy and more people write it their opinion on these boards than on any other subject. Probably because the officer has a name that ends in a vowel so the racists come out! "

View wrote on Oct 23, 2006 7:56 PM:

" Nathan broke the rules with his bumping the curve etc. The police officer broke the rules, by not ending the chase. Who is still alive? "

yo wrote on Oct 21, 2006 2:54 PM:

" Thanks, Pantagraph, for getting the amount of the settlement out in the open.... "

It seems wrote on Oct 21, 2006 10:33 AM:

" the only words you need to utter in order to fire at people in cars is "I felt my life was threatened" and then you have free rein. "

To Terri Smith wrote on Oct 21, 2006 5:02 AM:

" I also found it hard to believe Shannon's case had not been brought up in any of the post. I now know the reason as I have tried to comment twice but neither was ever posted. There was no reason not to post them. I stated that your son was not trying to hit anyone. It appears that the Pantagraph will only post negative comments about your son. "

actually wrote on Oct 20, 2006 10:53 AM:

" I'm not getting my facts from the police officer, only makes sense that if he was stuck, most back yards are made up of grass. You are a genius. Sounds like you are the one who thinks he was there that night. And, the police officer didn't make up his story NOR did he change it once. Let me add that things WRITTEN in these blogs are taken out of context....sooooo easy to take spoken words, take them out of context and twist them to what you want them to SEEM they mean. One could easily say that just by being a police officer one is predisposed to killing. It is all in how you spin it. If you can be a better police officer and keep the community and yourself safe, by all means, please do so. "

bn wrote on Oct 20, 2006 7:18 AM:

" to bn: my constant yap? Why don't you try reading the entire thread and see just exactly where I stand on the issue? "

Child wrote on Oct 19, 2006 7:01 PM:

" I think the comments made about Mr and Mrs Ruch's parenting skills are extremely cruel. You do your best to raise a child, but you can only guide and protect them so much. Those of you writing about him drinking and driving...I am not condoning it...but how many of you did the same thing when you were younger? Or even just last night? You just didn't get caught. "

sick of it all wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:44 PM:

" all the complaining in the world is not going to change anything at the NPD, not that anything needs changing. Eventually this will go away, some other news grabbing headline will gather your attention. Maybe one or two people here will try to take it further, but the overwhelming majority of residents of this county really don't care. Time heals all wounds, and makes people forget. Oh sure, it will come up when someone throws this incident, the Pelo incident, the Shannon Smith incident, into an officer's face as he's trying to do his job. No one seems to throw out the arrest's and conviction (well, when the SA can do their job anyway) of the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drunk drivers, and other criminals in this county. Try being a cop these days, then maybe your opinion will carry more weight. "

Krusty Krab wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:17 PM:

" to Krusty Krab wrote on October 19, 2006 4:27 PM: Gee, I'm sorry about setting the record straight all the time. I'll be sure to leave you to enjoy your tinfoil hat. (...and your use of the word "we" is funny...) "

to bn: wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:07 PM:

" Nothing is immaterial when anyone has their head blown off and people like you poo-poo it away...This police officer took the time to get his shotgun out of his trunk - If he hadn't stopped for the gun - he probably wouldn't have been in the path of any vehichle - better yet - if he had FOLLOWED PROCEEDURE we wouldn't have to listen to your constant yap.... "

Whoever said wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:03 PM:

" Nathan "broke free of the grass" - gee sounds like you were on the scene - Did you also mention there was plenty of frost and a light snow on the top of the grass that night? Gee - It's now he was on the side of the house when Nathan came around the corner - before it was he was in the front yard heading for the side - If you are getting the facts from the police officer - ask him to quit making it up as he goes.... "

bn wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:53 PM:

" What led up to the moment Merica took the shot is immaterial? What? EVERYTHING "

And Furthermore wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:53 PM:

" What made Merica believe he needed his shotgun? When he exited his vehicle Nathan was going around the house. Couldn't he have just drawn his hand gun and stepped out of the way? "

To: To: I encourage you all wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:48 PM:

" You're missing the point. He put himself directly in front of the path of the truck and then he lied when he said "I tried to get him out". He had plenty of time to reflect on how he was going to get himself out of this jam from the time the truck hit the house after Natan was shot to the time "Dave" arrived on the scene. When the first thing someone says is a lie when they find themselves in a precarious situation, you have to wonder about their credibility. No, not a pyschologist, just a mom. "

to Krusty Krab wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:27 PM:

" We are all getting tired of you hogging the Blogs - We have all heard way too much from you - don't you have something else you can do? Blah-Blah-Blah... "

Joseph wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:17 PM:

" Or maybe it shows a predisposition based on things he has said. "

The amount wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:14 PM:

" Would not have pleased any of you. Too high and you would say it was just about the money and too low means they didn't care about their kid. I think it is apparent they care about Nathan. I don't agree with their side but I do not question that they care about their son. You love your kids no matter what. I am sorry that they lost their son and even more sorry this ever had to happen. "

to I encourage you all wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:11 PM:

" Before he could identify himself as an officer he had to get around to where the truck was, by the time he was on the side of the house, Nathan broke free of the grass and was coming toward him. Why do you all insist on missing the fact that someone who, by all accounts, you claim was not too impaired, drove between two houses and toward an officer? You blame us for missing the point of Merica's comments when you all refuse to see the wrong Nathan did...only with .08 blood alcohol level. If you claim he wasn't so impaired and could think clearly then you are telling me that he did this with a more clear thinking mind???? You should hear yourself. My question is, why aren't the Ruch's sueing the person who sold/served Nathan the alcohol? That is where the real problem started. Blame someone beside just Merica....because it won't be Nathan's bad choices. "

Krusty Krab wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:09 PM:

" WOW wrote on October 19, 2006 2:00 PM: "I am the police commisioner in my community. WELL, THAT MEANS exactly nothing. "Police Commisioners" are most often political hacks and buddies of billy-joe-jim-bob the mayor. "Police Commissioners" are not certified law enforcement officers and know nothing of the rules for deadly force. Zip it, "commisioner." The real cops (S/A, ISP, FBI) disagree with your "assessment." "

to bn wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:07 PM:

" Because you don't know the reason he may have said he would have "dumped that kid" maybe--just maybe it was because another officer's life or someone else's was severly jeopardized in that incident and the only reason the threatened officer was alive was a tiny little miracle. Maybe you THINK you know the whole story for Nathan's incident and the comments Merica made but you don't so stop thinking you do. The comments were taken out of context to make Ruch's case look stronger. That's what lawyer's do and you fell for it...hook, line, and sinker. And I don't question the pursuit policy because Nathan didn't stop when he FIRST saw the lights....and just how long does it take someone to stop when they see lights on in the first place??? Hmmmmm?? "

to: I encourage you all wrote on Oct 19, 2006 3:23 PM:

" You're missing the point entirely. What led up to the moment that Officer Merica took the shot is completely immaterial. If, at the exact moment he took the shot he feared for his life, then he was justified, and everything he did or said before or after is completely moot. "

I encourage you all wrote on Oct 19, 2006 2:39 PM:

" to go back and listen to the video. Specifically, from the time Merica stops at the cul-de-sac to the time when "Dave" arrives at the scene. Note that Merica goes straight to his trunk, cocks his shot gun, and within 30 seconds unloads 7 shots. Then note the time it takes for fellow officers to show up, specifically "Dave". Note the first words out of Merica's mouth, note where they run the crime scene tape, note that Merica moved "purposedly?" in the path which he knew the truck would be coming, note that at no time did Merica attempt to identify himself. Nathan had no idea that a shotgun was being aimed at him and possibly no time to react had he known. I also wonder why, when Merica was able to rattle off a few numbers of the license plate, an initial search wasn't completed to let Merica know who he was following. He wasn't chasing a serial murderer. If dispatchers had ran a search, they could have met Nathan at home. "

to: BN wrote on Oct 19, 2006 2:17 PM:

" I absolutely agree -- in the case of Shannon Smith -- it was not his parent's fault he was driving and the Secretary of State's office should accept part of the blame for his death. However, I personally HAVE complained to the Secretary of State's office about licenses being given to people who are not capable of driving in all areas that they drive. Unfortunately, my complaints are against a group of people -- seniors who no longer have good reflexes, vision, or memories -- who apparently have positive voting records. I was told by a rep of the Secy of State's office that even if a senior (or anyone) fails a vision test at the DMV, they can bring in documentation from their doctor and get a driver's license. Sad!!!! "

WOW wrote on Oct 19, 2006 2:00 PM:

" I am the police commisioner in my community. There should not have been a single shot fired in this case. The officer from what I understand had an exit so should not have feared for his life. Shame on you who chastise the parents of this kid! Life is about making mistakes and learning from them. Who here is perfect and without flaws? This young man however was not given the option to learn from his mistakes. A bullet was his judge and jury! And for those of you bashing the officer. We are all humans here. We all make mistakes. All we can do is write this off as a sad situation and move on! I pray for the officer and the child's family. There is no winner here! Just two mistakes in the same night that ended a life! "

bn wrote on Oct 19, 2006 1:44 PM:

" to all the hypocrites: you people go on and on about Ruch's criminal history and how Ruch's parents are culpible for not sitting on his 20 year old head. I hear scores of posts saying Ruch's lack of responsability ultimately caused his death. Can you people complaining about this "basically good cop", who by the way has been "trigger happy" on more than one occasion and conveyed his wish to "dump" others to fellow officers, even give consideration to the fact that Merica broke NPD policy in pursuing Ruch? Why does that never seem to come up? Why is it when it does come up those who side with Merica change the subject or dismiss it as not contributing at all to Ruch's death? Open your eyes people, there is non-political middle ground here in America...somewhere. "

Responsibility wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:46 AM:

" I totally agree with the poster who said this case has helped us become aware that we have a responsibility to protect our loved ones from doing things like drinking and driving, doing drugs, or not taking responsibility for their actions. By the same token, my understanding is that the officer is NOT doing patrol duty any more (I believe he was reassigned to a detective position) -- so this case has also probably gotten a basically decent police officer who may have been a bit too "trigger happy" away from street duty. I do thank him for doing what he felt he needed to do to protect us -- and...isn't it interesting that in the same McLean County court system...a young man was recently sent to jail for KILLING someone while drinking and driving??? "

To..If the Insurance Company wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:45 AM:

" I do not see this settlement as an admission of guilt on behalf of the city at all! If it cost the Ruch family $250,000 to have their lawyer oversee this case without having it go to trial, how much would it have cost the insurance company to have its legal counsel defend the case at trial. Then...if they had lost...they would have spent more to have appealed the case. In the scheme of things, $750,000 was a small amount to have this case behind them. "

Its a pool wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:45 AM:

" The town of Normal is self-insured and belongs to a pool of several small cities. If it was an insurance company they would have gotten millions. Because it is a pool they do not have as much money to give and the pool has to agree to pay out. "

bn wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:40 AM:

" to "I was waiting", could you be any more of an idiot? Where did Shannon Smith get his drivers license? Did his parents take the test for him or bribe the Secretary of States office? The State of Illinois gave Shannon Smith a valid drivers license, not his parents. You want to btch about Shannon Smith being behind the wheel when he was gunned down go down to the drivers license facility and ask them why they issue driving privleges to young men with "fourth grade educational level intellect". "

If the insurance company wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:26 AM:

" was so sure they could win on the facts, they would have gone to court and asked for Summary Judgment. That would have meant that the judge looked at the case and ruled in their favor because he thought they were obviously right. This did not happen. The Town of Normal and its insurance carrier had four years to look at this case. In that time they obviously decided it was too risky to take it to trial because they would probably not win - and then it would cost more. It looks like an admittance of fault and liability. "

Price? wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:21 AM:

" You can't put a price on the death of a loved one. No amount of money will bring him back. What if this had been your loved one? I would hope you would want the truth made known. This is about exposing a renegade and a system out of control. "

I AGREE wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:16 AM:

" I agree with "Sad Dad" NO AMOUNT OF MONEY COULD EVER BRING HIM BACK. But don't say that the officer was "wrong". The kid was also wrong in NOT pulling over- makes you wonder what he was hiding or trying to hide. And don't give me that "money has nothing to do with it". Someone was greedy enough to sue.......... "

Break even wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:03 AM:

" The cost to the town of the trial alone would have been more then the settlement. The insurance company would have been on the hook for that. This was an economic decision. It had nothing to do with fault. "

To break even wrote on Oct 19, 2006 10:47 AM:

" the award is meant to deter further abuses by the police - so there will not be any more wrongful death claims "

Break-even wrote on Oct 19, 2006 10:41 AM:

" Any award for this complaint is excessive. "

... wrote on Oct 19, 2006 10:12 AM:

" That's going to be 750,000 frosties.... "

Mike wrote on Oct 19, 2006 9:49 AM:

" Someone said the lawyer got $250k plus $42,000. The law firm spent $42,000 on the case, that's what the $42k was. They then got their fee. As much as I don't like lawyers, this is how the system generally works in civil cases. Had they lost, the law firm would be out $42,000. Although I think they normally take the fees out and then split the money, or the fees come out of the lawyers portion. I don't see why the fees were taken from the family's portion. "

the bottom line wrote on Oct 19, 2006 9:33 AM:

" is that there would not have been any settlement unless the insurance company saw that the police department and the Town of Normal were very likely liable for "wrongful death." I hope the mayors and city councils of B-N will take a look at their policies regarding police actions. If you ask around the state, I think you will find that B-N has a terrible reputation for unfair and brutal cops. "

JTE wrote on Oct 19, 2006 9:32 AM:

" “The defendant was driving at high rates of speeds in a residential area. He was fleeing from police, which he had no right to do, and tragic consequences occurred..." Judge Dozier's comments in another case (reported in today's Pantagraph website). "

Ryan wrote on Oct 19, 2006 9:21 AM:

" Whose pocket is this money coming from? Property taxes? "

To WOW wrote on Oct 19, 2006 8:35 AM:

" I just think that it is wrong to bash the parents and how they may or may not have raised their son. Sometimes kids just turn out that way no matter how much love, support, and nurturing a child can be given. They can also be taught wrong from right, but doesn't mean they live it. I do not know these people, but just because kids do things that are wrong, doesn't automatically make the parents bad!!!And no matter what, he was their son and I am sure they loved him, good or bad!! THAT IS WHAT A PARENT DOES!!!! "

I was wating wrote on Oct 19, 2006 8:19 AM:

" For someone to bring up the Shannon Smith case. A man with a 4th grade education level intellect allowed to drive an automobile. In both cases, the person driving the vehicle shouldn't have been doing so. Ruch = impared by substance abuse. Smith = impared by lack of adult reasoning capability. "

Sad Dad... wrote on Oct 19, 2006 8:15 AM:

" 1 - It's our business because a) it's public monies involving a public entity and b) if you tell one side of the story, you have to tell all of it. 2 - No amount of money brings a loved-one back, no matter how stupid the loved one acted to get themselves killed. 3 - No amount of money pays off a family because a police officer with a prior record of wanting to use his weapon did so. 4 - The victims are the person killed, his family, the officer who did the shooting, and the taxpayers for having to pay for this mess. 5 - Next time someone in law enforcement tells you to pull over, do so, please. Don't try to run them over. "

terry smith wrote on Oct 19, 2006 7:56 AM:

" Brett Nauman,, I just posted a comment, i really dont think you will post it on here, for the simple fact it has a web site of more police shottings, and shannon smith was my son, i did not mention that in the comment,,,and for some strange reason shannons case has never came up once in all the comments made, that is very hard to believe, or has it, and maybe there not being posted,,though i think it is a fare comment i sent, and i see nothing wrong with it, But i sometimes feel that the pantagraph protects there county,,,McLean Co. take note this isnt a comment for Ruths case, this is to the ones who screen the comment , and post them, "

terry smith wrote on Oct 19, 2006 7:42 AM:

" For all the people who wrote coments, about the amount of money that was seattled on this case..Little do they know, this is the goverment, you more, or less get what they decide to give you for your loss..You dont have as much say so as you think..click on this web site---www.p-u-p-s.com, read 0n about other police shootings. In the final days of the guilty 0nes life, god will be the judge, terry "

TO: Never Again wrote on Oct 19, 2006 6:52 AM:

" Youre right. For this to "never happen again", I as a parent will do my best to teach my child to not drink and drive, not avoid the police, and pull over when requested by an officer of the law....THAT will make SURE my child and everyone else understand that this "never let this happen again"!!!! I would NEVER want to be in the shoes of any officer, because there will always be an opinion from us if they acted in a right or wrong manner....all I can think is that anyone who drives behind a house (not normal), might also be willing to pull out a gun (not normal) on his return visit to the front yard.....If I am the officer paid to protect the public, I protect not only the public, but also myself!! Consequences....you bet!!! Obey the law! "

Wondering wrote on Oct 19, 2006 6:40 AM:

" Ya all gettin ready for the next visit from the Presidential candidate in 2008, compliments of EVERYONES tax dollars? Im sure Mr. Dorris is ready to make a "fine" donation to the democratic party candidate...Cant wait to see John Edwards again!!! "

Crow wrote on Oct 19, 2006 6:30 AM:

" Shame on all of you. This is a tragic situation for all involved--the family and the police officer. This is a private family matter. These are good people who lost a child. They wanted to find out why their child was killed by a police officer. Our legal system only allows one method of doing so...lawsuit for damages. Whatever the family decides to do with the money is their business. I am positive that they would prefer to have Nathan. No amount of money and nothing that the "Pan of Crap" prints or any of these cruel, crude, insensitive bloggers can say will ever bring him back. Let him rest in peace and leave the family and officer alone. "

pantagraph reader wrote on Oct 19, 2006 6:27 AM:

" Remember,It's all about money!!!! "

Never again wrote on Oct 19, 2006 6:07 AM:

" Do you not understand. The Ruch's didn't say Nathan was perfect. They went to court so that this would never happen again. No amount of money will bring their son back. The point they were trying to make is that this cannot ever happen to somone else or their family. Do what is right and make sure it doesn't. Stop badmouthing anyone and get the system corrected so that it doen't happen ever again. "

REMEMEBER THIS; VOTE KOOS GONE! wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:58 AM:

" "The town has no further plans to investigate Merica, now a Normal detective, Mayor Chris Koos said Tuesday. "We feel the investigations which were done of the incident and of Officer Merica warrant his fitness for duty," Koos said." Why don't we let Koos pay this bill? His lack of leadership in this matter is consistent with his nansy-pansy, limp-wristed style. Not surprising from a bicycle marm... "

Frodo Baggins wrote on Oct 19, 2006 2:46 AM:

" Confucius say the difference between a lawyer and a chicken is, the chicken clucks defiant. "

Free Market wrote on Oct 18, 2006 11:28 PM:

" Let the free market work and do not complain. If you are unhappy with Normal then move to another town and do not go there. The Ruch family apparently got what they thought this was worth. Personally if I thought the police wrongfully killed my child it would be worth a lot more to me than $460,000, but hey that is just me. And Normal paid what they thought it was worth to address the issue. (As an aside, my guess is the Ruchs now feel guilty about it so they are playing it out in the media instead. That happens when you realize that your 30 pieces of silver were not enough. If they did not want their son's death to turn into a media circus they would not be doing this now.) But that goes to the free market again because the paper is more than willing to sell stories. If you don;t like it, move to Bloomington, the police department there NEVER makes the news (insert eye roll). "

To so-called ligigator wrote on Oct 18, 2006 11:00 PM:

" Do your research...the old lady that sued McDonalds and got 'millions' - that case was overturned and eventually settled for a much smaller amount. Its a good system, it worked in this case and I hope you are never in a car accident. Insurance companies don't pay money unless they have to!!!! And to the guy threatening to sue the pantagraph and posters on this site...be careful and do your research...its been a while, but i am pretty sure the statements have to be false in order for their to be liability...so make sure they are false. I CAN'T GET SUED FOR THAT CAN I? "

Dan wrote on Oct 18, 2006 10:01 PM:

" Sorry, but the "one day" $250,000 earnings for the attorney expressed by one contributor lacks any math agility, or reason. The year this case started is 2002, and this is 2006 last I checked- about 4 years - close to 1.400 days - NOT hours - not "a days worrk". "

re wrote on Oct 18, 2006 9:49 PM:

" What a waste of money. There are many charities that could use the assistance, but I imagine it will be put to selfish use with no responsibility. "

william wrote on Oct 18, 2006 9:01 PM:

" I have always beleived that you will not have a problem with a police officer if you do exactly what he tells you to do. Nathan did not. He escalated the situation to where the officer was in fear for his life. I did not say his life was in danger, he was in fear for it and he reacted. I think anyone would have done the same thing, if itis me or you, and I can protect myself, it will be you. "

YYLER wrote on Oct 18, 2006 8:33 PM:

" In a judicial system that awards millions to an old lady who spills McDonalds coffee on her lap, why take the chance--$750,000 for this type of incident is pretty much a sympathy amount to the parents. "

pantagraph reader wrote on Oct 18, 2006 7:30 PM:

" That should be a lesson to all you would be criminals driving in Normal ,stop or pay the price .Better to just stay out of Dodge partner. "

This settlement was right wrote on Oct 18, 2006 6:43 PM:

" This settlement was right. The City of Normal was in the wrong. So was its police officer. It could have been much more expensive. I commend the city's leaders for taking the bull by the horns and putting this matter behind them. The surviving family's attorney also deserves every single penny of that 1/4 million dollars...and then some. This is because he has provided excellent service. This is my humble opinion! "

hmm wrote on Oct 18, 2006 6:17 PM:

" if it was really 'never about the money' ... they probably could've sued for something like... Merica's resignation...? that would be free I think. The system fails again. IF YOU RUN FROM THE POLICE, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Enjoy your "never for the money" money... Your son was wrong, he ran from the police, and put his life and others in danger. If Merica's felt his life was in imminent danger, good for him. It could've been any officer on the road that night. "

To ??? wrote on Oct 18, 2006 6:06 PM:

" Great advice!!! If you don't like it here, maybe you should leave. I would avoid going to Springfield, their police dept. has got their own issues. Go to www.sj-r.com if you think it's better anywhere else. "

Stormin' Norman wrote on Oct 18, 2006 5:47 PM:

" May all these Lawsuit Lotto winnings be spent at the gambling boat in East Peoria. I'll never earn this much money in my lifetime, but I still do my best to abide by our laws. The system still needs to be changed to where no one can reap financial benefit from the commission of a crime. "

didn't you read wrote on Oct 18, 2006 5:17 PM:

" Didn't you read the paper yesterday? The pantagraph and their attorney were forcing the judge to open the records. The family opened it up to end controversy. Of course they are judged badly for amy amount they got from some. Others will wonder why they settled at all for under the 10K they deserved. "

??? wrote on Oct 18, 2006 5:00 PM:

" You better leave now and take what you need; the police will grab it without reason, maybe a life to...get out of bloomington normal soon:) "

THIS IS.. wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:58 PM:

" Maybe the family was "forced" to make this amount public because if enough people stuck their noses into it, the amount would come out anyways...like I said before, nothing is private in this world, and that is horrible. This was an insurance claim, atleast paid as one, and to me that is personal information, regardless of what the NORMAL tax payers think, that is why I choose not to reside in NORMAL, taxes are too high, and the Police... "

To: to the Pantagraph wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:48 PM:

" you obviously know nothing about the law nor common sense. "

To: Put it to Rest wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:46 PM:

" You are so right about MANY of us saying things that others perceive as inappropriate...especially when taken out of context. Even the writers of the Bible have been judged for some of their statements. I wonder if when some posters make inflammatory comments about either side if they would be ready to face a judge and defend those comments in a court. At any rate, you are also right that the driver was not a child the night in question and undoubtedly made his own decision to drive (was it his own insured vehicle he was driving and, if not, who DID give hiim access to this vehicle when he did not have a valid driver's license??). However, it was HIS family who brought all of this up -- 4 years after the fact -- in their quest for some sort of "truth". "

Jim Owens wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:40 PM:

" To "Texas law": Your iron-headed laws, as well as the Texas-bred hubris that swallows your brain cells on an hourly basis, is what got us into the Iraqistan nightmare. And cost us The United States Constitution. May a tumbleweed get stuck in your eardrum. "

Put it to Rest wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:15 PM:

" Nobody won in this case except the attorney. I don't know anyone personally that is involved with this case but I do know that it's wrong to blame the parents for what Nathan did that night. Once a child reaches a certain age, they make their own decisions. I can't imagine that the officer will ever forget this either, nor be happy that it happened. You can all talk about his "comments" but I think you would all agree that each and every one of us has made comments that were inappropriate at times and could have been taken out of context. "

To: To: :( wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:14 PM:

" I think all the facts are available. According to the paper it seems that all of the things presented to the judge are now open to our viewing--from both sides (it just seems the parents want it read more). I want to see these, and I want the Town Council to see these without the spin, and then decide what best to do for our town and our officers. "

T wrote on Oct 18, 2006 4:08 PM:

" Normal Consider yourself getting off cheap. Now wait for the civil lawsuit against the officer. What the town should do now is fire him. He does not deserve to be an officer. Well maybe as a dog catcher "

To: to the Pantagraph wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:59 PM:

" Thanks for the joke of the day. "

To To Texas Law wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:58 PM:

" He was breaking the law and was ordered to stop and didn't. "

Stuck wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:55 PM:

" The city is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They settled with the family and have to keep the cop employed or else he might sue the city since all other departments found the officer to be justified in his actions. On what grounds can they fire him now? Please give him a desk job with no access to weapons. And "WONDER" is correct....why would an officer who was chasing a car immediately go for his shotgun when he already has a handgun on his hip?? "

FU wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:53 PM:

" :( I tend to agree with you. $750K was a drop in the bucket when you subtract the emotional burdens of losing a child. Jim Merica should count his blessings. "

To: :( wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:50 PM:

" No amount of money will bring back Nathan Ruch and it is sad that "Jack and Marge" accepted $750,000 and a trial in the press for his death rather than continuing through the court so that ALL of the facts -- from BOTH sides -- could have been presented. "

Of couse it wasnt @ $ wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:48 PM:

" and Everything in disneyland is real! "

What the parents wanted... wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:44 PM:

" Was the police department to ruin the life of the officer. They wanted him fired, and they wanted him to sign an agreement to never carry a firearm again. The PD (rightly) refused these terms. When they couldn't get their vengence, then they settled for money. Too bad they never taught their child any sense of self-responsibility, of course, you can't teach something you don't know. Oh yah, and you - the tax payer, payed this settlement. "

well said wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:37 PM:

" Real issues! "

to "I really doubt" wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:30 PM:

" I really doubt Nathan had any intentions of STOPPING WHATSOEVER. Too bad for him; had he, he'd still be alive - probably in jail but alive nonetheless. "

Not ENOUGH wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:24 PM:

" That amount is nothing compared to what they should have received. They worked on getting out the truth on this case since March 2002. Something that the city and NPD should have been forthcoming with immediately. For all of you candy-butt whiners griping about what they received - I doubt very much that ANY of you would have put yourselves through this to take it to the end. The Ruchs deserve 5 times that for having to force the city and NPD to deal with the problems they created by letting Merica slide all that time. "

bn wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:18 PM:

" to brian: If Merica had followed standard Normal Police Department procedure Nathan Ruch would very likely be alive and in prison. Nothing changes that simple fact. "

to the Pantagraph wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:15 PM:

" Go ahead and don't post this, but make sure that you read it. Every single post on here that makes an alleged statement of fact or inflamatory comment about Merica is being kept track of. So when someone posts, "He was wrong for having slugs in the gun," when it was not his choice, or when a post says, "a settlement by the town is an admission of wrongdoing (by Merica)," or that Merica "gets off on violence" each and everyone of those posts has been on the Pantagraph's website and may lead to a suit. And each and every one of those posts can lead to two counts, one against the poster and one against the Pantagraph. So the litigation so far will be nothing compared to the litigation around the corner. "

wow wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:13 PM:

" maybe if your child was worth a darn then he wouldn't have been in trouble and would still be alive. Maybe with the $750,000 you can take some parenting classes, and give the rest to M.A.D.D! That is "if you are not about the money".... "

wow wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:07 PM:

750k wrote on Oct 18, 2006 3:00 PM:

" if they spend even 1 cent of that money they are wrong. A donatin to m.a.d.d. would be good. Maybe some good can come out of it after all this. "

Wow! wrote on Oct 18, 2006 2:55 PM:

" $750,000?!? You can buy about 757,576 double cheeseburgers with that much money (before tax of course). "

I'm wondering. . . wrote on Oct 18, 2006 2:45 PM:

" how we are supposed to feel safe with people like him acting as officers of the law in our town. His comments about "not if, but when" are disturbing, to say the least. "

:( wrote on Oct 18, 2006 2:37 PM:

" Everyone needs to think about this... WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR CHILD???????? No matter who was at fault, what if it was your child. Jack and Marge are not about the money, they are about the truth. They went into this lawsuit because they couldn't get any answers on why this happend to their child, so they hired a lawyer to help them out. They were NOT in it for the money. Ever heard of Jack Ruch's Quality Homes?? Or Ever heard anything about his molding/trim that they make??? Or what about JR tree removal??? They don't need the money at all!! They are the most hardest working people that I have met, and one of the nicest family. I personally think that 750k is not enough. "

I really doubt wrote on Oct 18, 2006 2:01 PM:

" that Nathan had any intentions WHATSOEVER of running down a cop. In the activity, he may not have even known where the cop was standing or if he was even out of his car. Merica should have handled it differently, period. It may be a case of "too much tv", but the tires were just as exposed, if not more, than the driver. Now, don't come back and say "what if the truck had wrecked into the house"? The same thing could have happened when he was shot in the head. And what about unloading a shotgun in a VERY residential area? The kid should be alive, PERIOD. "

Jim Owens wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:55 PM:

" Yes, tragic for both sides. This is what happens when you train cops in military tactics, as we have been doing in the U.S. for a couple of decades now. I respect police officers everywhere; but I dread and despise the military police state that looms in the shadows of Bush neo-fascism. Why doesn't The Pantagraph petition for something more meaningful, something horrendous on a global scale: the thousands of pages of classified (hidden) 9/11 documents? And where was The Pantagraph when The Downing Street Memo (meeting minutes) was published by blogs that run on pocket change? So much more. OK, unleash the rabid neo-con attack dogs! Bring it on! "

interested wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:50 PM:

" Where does a police office obtain the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of a 20 year old student. A car moving 7 MPH provides a very easy target. I am amazed that it took him 4 shots. "

Brian wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:44 PM:

" Saying the "truth" would have come out in a courtroom in this case is like saying the truth came out in the OJ case. The simplest thing to remember is all of this would NEVER have happened had Mr. Ruch just stopped the truck like he was supposed to and taken the impending punishment like a man. Nothing Officer Merica did, right or perceived wrong, changes that simple fact. "

Litigator wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:26 PM:

" Good thing the cop didn't spill hot coffee on the kid, or it could have gotten really expensive for that insurance company!! This family will not be the first to get a settlement check when a jury would not have awarded them one dime, nor are they the first to settle for an amount less than a jury might have awarded them. The truth is, as OJ and McDonalds have proven to us time and time again, you just never know what might happen when a jury gets involved. Not a perfect system, but best in the world. "

sad story... wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:19 PM:

" It is unfortunate that some will blame the parents for not raising this boy right. He made the decision to do what he did, not them. I fully believe it was their right to pursue the wrongful death suit, it surely seems like the officer could have used some other tactics; but then, I wasn't there. Now we have the officer's 'comments' plastered everywhere and that makes us think badly of the police force. Why wasn't he reprimanded earlier? Well, we all know 'proper channels' can make relieving someone of their job difficult. Maybe now the parents can get on with their lives......perhaps they can or will want to move away. As for their attorney.....hey, he won the case for them, didn't he? You get paid for doing your job don't you?? If you want to make that kind of money - go to law school! I commend him for doing his job and helping out the family. "

I'm sure. wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:17 PM:

" I'm sure the family will be donating their share of the settlement to charity since the lawsuit was only about getting the facts out. Not. "

Real Issues??? wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:11 PM:

" So what are the real issues then...That a police officer did his job? That he served and protected? I don't like the fact that the boy died anymore than you do, but the police did their job and now we all have to worry about the next time a drunken underage kid eludes police, that the police will do nothing, and maybe someone innocent will die. And then what..another 750K gone because that family felt like the officer didn't do enough? If you can't obey or if you dislike our laws, please move somewhere else...away from the United States. Go live in North Korea or Iraq and let us know how it works for you. "

NPD - Better Take a 2nd Look wrote on Oct 18, 2006 1:05 PM:

" Despite what our friends in the insurance industry would tell us, they are neither sympathetic nor altruistic when it comes to big claims settlement. A $750M settlement suggests that the insurance company was looking at a whole lot of evidence that was not going to play well in court. Rule of thumb, the insurance company thought their top end exposure was $1.5 - $3 million. This contrasts sharply with our "police investigating police" report finding no problems with officer Merica or his actions. The guys with the wallet looked at the same evidence and saw a million dollar problem. Now I have a certain respect for cops backing up their colleagues, and the Town Council supporting the NPD, and the mayor supporting the Council, but an insurance company just wrote an enormous check to make a problem go away, and the problem is still on the payroll and has inexplicably been promoted to detective. It's not too late for the Town to do the right thing and clean up this mess. "

Not $ wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:52 PM:

" The Pantagraph would have forced the amount of the settlement open. The Ruch's had no choice but to open the records or wait for the court to do so....The decision to sue was never about the money, Now we can see how much it distracted everyone from the real issues. Will nothing change because of their efforts. "

So wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:51 PM:

" So the attorney get almost $300,000. I think it's clear who the winner is here. These people lost a son for what ever the reason may be and the police officer had to shot and kill someone. The people on the street had to deal with someone being shot and killed outside thier window. 1/4 million dollars and $42,000 in fees. Not a bad day for the attorney. "

Disagree with George wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:46 PM:

" I think Ruch's attorney would have been gathering evidence for a trial and if the family had pursued that option, the town council should have heard/reviewed ALL evidence. Since the family settled out of court, everything should be put to rest. The driver WAS shot resisting arrest and I trust the agencies that reviewed the case more than a trial lawyer who got $250,000 in an out-of-court settlement. I think the whole thing should be laid to rest now. The officer is off of patrol duty, the driver is dead, the family has an out-of-court settlement, and a lawyer has a quarter of a million dollars. "

THIS IS..stupid wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:43 PM:

" It is our business. We are tax payers and some one breaks the law, gets shot in the act of doing it, and then their family is rewarded money for the child that they failed to raise correctly. Again, another flaw in the system that constantly rewards people who are stupid, lazy, and think they are above the law. While the rest of us tax paying, law abiding citizens are stuck with the bill. I say, GOOD JOB PANTAGRAPH, THANKS FOR REPORTING THE FACTS. "

$$$$ wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:41 PM:

" At least we all know, the value (in dollars) the family put for losing their loved one's life. What's the $ really going to do for them??? Buy them a new house? Why was there even a lawsuit. Petty petty petty. "

Maybe Not wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:41 PM:

" Maybe this is no one's business..but it WAS the family who wanted the information out in regard to their complaint against the NPD, so it is only right that the amount of the settlement also be a part of the information released. It looked really weird that they wanted their side of the dirt out on the policeman, but not the amount of the settlement. It is proper that the Pantagraph pursued the amount, that the family changed their minds on making the documents public, and that the amount of the settlement was reported. I guess it really doesn't make that much difference now -- it was a sad situation all the way around. "

to texas law wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:38 PM:

" I think you should actually get the facts of the case straight before you go judging. This thing seemed dirty from the start. "

Scares me wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:38 PM:

" “My motto is, it’s not a matter of if I’m going to be involved in another shooting, it’s a matter of when.” “No one should get an award for not killing a guy that needed to be killed,” “I would have just dumped the kid.” "

Guess it wasn't about the money wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:38 PM:

" People have sued for less and gotten more. . . they must have really just been after the truth. "

texas law wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:36 PM:

" I thought that he was shot while resisting arrest or failing to comply to a law officers demands. If so they don't deserve anything. "

George wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:33 PM:

" Mayor Koos comments are most interesting, considering none of the agencies such as the state police, the states attorney, etc had enough of the information to form an accurate opinion. Wouldn't it be useful to look at all the facts and have it revisited. I hope the town council reads all the infomation that is available from the Ruch's Attorney and not just what the police provided. Then they may get a correct picture of the facts. "

to: THIS IS.. wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:29 PM:

" According to a story yesterday, Ruch's family changed their minds and wanted the documents made public, including their settlement amount: http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/10/17/news/ doc453518c57b1d5300998347.txt "

THIS IS.. wrote on Oct 18, 2006 12:15 PM:

" NO ONES BUSINESS..."Slantagraph" at it again...NOTHING IS PRIVATE ANYMORE...THESE POOR PEOPLE... "

Ads by Yahoo!

Relocating to Bloomington IL?

Commercial Insurance policies

Build a Sunroom