It may not come from normal private insurance. I'm just saying that I don't think they'd dump QI and then leave officers with no liability protection of any kind. I think the departments would indemnify them, and I think they'd use something comparable to the TML Intergovernmental Risk Pool, which often provides liability and workers compensation coverage for local governments. Would the costs associated with it go up? I'm sure they would. I almost don't see how they couldn't. But not to worry. Those costs will get passed on to us, and we'll cover it with higher taxes so the woke can feel more righteous. TML has lobbyists (whom we pay for) to make sure our taxes never get too low.
I can't say I have statistics about how often bad cops are convicted or not. My sense is that it is very difficult to hold bad cops accountable. I have read about multiple situations where police departments have defended bad cops in what I would consider corrupt ways. I get that police have tough jobs that include using violence and making quick decisions. I don't think their every move should be nit picked. But something needs to change.
It is difficult. The evidentiary burden is high, and the department usually protects the cop. However, the process is there when the misconduct is clear cut. I'm open to making changes, and unlike iatrogenic I'm about as lawsuit-friendly as it gets. 90 percent of the time, I'm defending the right of the individual to sue, and he's opposing it or wanting to limit it. However, there's a reason why he and I at least mostly agree on this. You have to consider the public safety implications of opening up officers to greater civil liability in situations in which their alleged misconduct is more blurry. I believe you when you say you don't want every move nitpicked, but the reality is that the broader the litigation opportunities, the more they'll be nitpicked and the softer and less predictable the standards of liability will be. That's just how it works. Many cops will leave, and those who stay will be a more passive in their duties. It may not make a big difference in relatively safe communities that don't have a significant crime problem. There aren't many police interactions, and more conservative judicial venues will keep the lawsuits somewhat in check. However, what will happen in places like Detroit, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, or New Orleans where criminal violence is a daily occurrence and where judges have to answer to delusional, woke freak shows to keep their jobs? It'll cost significant numbers of lives - not the lives of drug-ridden criminal thugs who are fighting with the police but the lives of decent, innocent, mostly black and Hispanic people that groups like BLM and white leftists couldn't give a **** about because they aren't politically useful. Nobody's going to "say their names." Nobody's going to rally for them. Nobody's going to start a political movement for them. Nobody's going to name streets or schools after them. Al Sharpton isn't going to their funerals. Their deaths will be mentioned once on the local news, and their lives and deaths will be forgotten by everybody but their families and close friends the next day. For most of us, it'll be as if they were never born in the first place. I'd be more open to changing my mind if there was evidence of large amounts of misconduct that went unpunished despite efforts to do so. I don't doubt that it happens, but how common is it? I think we need to know that with at least some degree of certainty before we start making significant changes, because we'd need to balance that against the likely negative impacts on public safety (meaning dead people caused by lax enforcement of the laws).
I agree with your comments. My question back is what things SHOULD we be changing based on principle. Maybe qualified immunity needs to stay in some form, but aren't there other things that can be changed to hold police accountable? Abolishing police unions is one thing I think we would agree that is a problem regardless of statistics. One thing that also needs to change to help increase safety in minority communities is that the community needs to trust the police. Trust can be improved by showing that police are held accountable when they abuse their power. If Chauvin only was held accountable because of the media attention, that means the problem is real. I don't know what the correct level of punishment is for Chauvin, but he deserved something. He at the very best was negligent and that negligence played a role in Floyd's death. There are other examples of this kind of police negligence killing people who aren't a threat to the public. There should be 0 allowance for this. I wrote a little bit about this, and I think you already read the article. Link for reference. https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-forgotten-man-tony-timpa.html Labor unions, qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture, laws regarding non-violent crime all need to be changed. For me labor unions and civil asset forfeiture are candidates to be abolished. The others should be reformed to show good faith to community grievances.
Here is an example of the kind of stuff that just has to stop. Take note of the police departments response to the event. It isn't concerned with justice but to defend its own. Teenage Boy, Working on Truck With Oil Can, Shot by Police | The Libertarian Institute
I want to see the video...I've seen several variances in the claims being advanced so far, and while some of them are minor (was it an oil jug or an antifreeze jug, never mind that neither is going to stop a truck from rolling) and some are more substantial (this article says they were pulled over while others say the officer/deputy came upon them already at the side of the road), any sort of variance can be critical. I HATE the incessant rush to judgment that occurs in the media and on social media sites. It interferes with investigations and also taints potential juror pools in cases where trial becomes necessary (civil OR criminal). It ALSO creates heightened tensions amongst those wearing the badge such that they are going to necessarily be more prone to a bad choice, especially in the middle of the night with two juveniles (since this was around 3AM). IMO, whether this is a good shoot or a bad shoot is almost a side issue to the fact that the media has irreparably harmed police-community relations while at the same time widening the racial divides.
Armed Carjackers Strike 3 Times In Broad Daylight From West Loop To Humboldt Park, Despite Surveillance Cameras At Each Site (msn.com) "it seems we can’t get a break in crime" Oh really, I wonder why that is? It certainly couldn't be because of lack of enforcement of of violent crime. Everyone knows if we just give the criminals a little cognitive behavioural therapy and have them watch an episode of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood there will be no more crime.
Everything about this story so far should make you suspicious of the police. 1) The police haven't released the video. That alone should cause you to scream at the wall. They are hiding evidence. 2) The differences in details you mention have no relevance to the case. So what if it was on oil can or antifreeze can? Does it change the story in any way? 3) Who is giving the media the different accounts? Is it the police? One source is the passenger maybe, but the other is the policemen who were there. Can't this be cleared up with a police report? 4) Why did the police pull them over or why did they pull up on the stopped vehicle? They obviously weren't doing it to help, or the policeman would have handled it a different way. If a policeman walks and tries to help no one gets shot. If the policeman was suspicious, what is that suspicion based? It was early in the morning (3 am)? That doesn't confer guilt. Was it that they were young and driving a crappy truck? That doesn't confer guilt either. If the policeman suspected them of any wrong doing. Where is the evidence? There weren't doing anything wrong. In fact they were doing what every conservative wants young men to do. Work hard. Solve their own problems. Get and keep a job. I don't always assume police are wrong. But give me a reason to think these ones aren't? Not even the PD is saying anything to arouse suspicion towards to the victim. They are simply keeping quiet and protecting a cop that killed a decent young man. That is injustice. When policemen killed unarmed people who don't have a criminal record we should be demand every bit of evidence from them to prove they aren't guilty of crime. If Republicans don't start to demand accountability, the party is going to go the way of the Whig Party.
Video should NEVER be released while investigation is ongoing. The same thing applies to public information requests and exists in codified law. The differences in the stories are coming from the interviews with the passenger. Those sorts of things are something that need to be resolved. Is the kid changing his story or is the media screwing things up and offering their own views. And, supposedly the kid was in the vehicle, so he wouldn't even have KNOWN what definitely transpired outside of the vehicle. The fact that different media stories have included claims of a stop versus the officer rolling up on them is a VERY significant difference. It was 3:00AM...if I break down at the side of the road, I damned sure hope an officer would stop. Conversely, if I am having vehicle issues and an officer comes up behind me at 3:00AM, I won't be surprised if he lights me up. Either scenario COULD have occurred here since tranny issues such that the driver could not maintain speed is cause for a stop... I am sick of the incessant demand for half-assed answers while an agency is still trying to piece together WHAT actually happened. That applies not only to THIS case, but ANY homicide or other felony. It applies not only to THIS case but to ANY case where someone is harmed in some fashion, whether by an officer or not. People either believe in due process and the rule of law or they don't. Rushed judgments and demands for half-assed answers says the nation has decided to wipe its *** with the Constitution. An officer never knows what they might be walking up on, especially in light of what we just saw a week ago in Daytona Beach where an officer was attacked and shot by someone 'just sitting in their car' at a late hour. It does not matter whether a driver is white or black or some other color...the media narratives have created such a divide that every person is now viewed as another Othal Wallace.
Does that defend justice or the police? When a person is killed by the police, we can't then assume that only the police have the right to look into the situation. The parents of the boy killed have just as much right to know what happened as the investigation is ongoing. They do need to be resolved. But all the differences that you presented are inconsequential. If the story is being changed couldn't a journalist also clear up those differences? Sure. But there is no explanation in the story as to why the situation escalated. If the policeman is there to help why did it escalate so fast when the driver tried to make sure the truck wouldn't roll away while stopped? Doesn't make sense to me. You would think if there was some reason for the policeman to pull his gun, they would have given some explanation, but they didn't. No one is calling for the policeman to get convicted without due process. It is okay for people to follow stories as they unfold and form their opinions as information comes out. That has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution says that citizens have a right to share and discuss information as they please. Justice won't be served if any time a policeman kills someone the only source of information allowed is the police department and information can't be shared publicly. That sets up a system, like we have today, where those in power keep the light of the truth off them. This gives corruption a place to grow. Free people don't let that situation to occur.
I don't have a lot of answers for you. Ultimately bad cops should be disciplined like any other employee. It'll happen when the public cares enough to make it a real issue. Right now, it isn't. Right now, it's radical freaks and insane people in the activist class and virtue signalers on social media (who basically just useful idiots) against people who aren't insane. That's not a political climate for serious reform. I'm open to some changes on the edges of qualified immunity. I understand this, but if the distrust is irrational or based on a lie (as much of it is), then holding people accountable isn't going to help. I don't like public sector unions in general, but if a cop is getting unjustly **** on (which happens to cops more than any other public sector employees), it's the only tool in his arsenal. I'm reluctant to single him out for getting rid of unionization. Again, on the edges perhaps. What exactly has to stop? We don't know what happened.
I more or less agree with your response to me. Reform and criticism has to be logical and thoughtful. One area where we are different is that I think qualified immunity and police unions are bigger problems than you do. I don't think there is any problem protecting police who make tough decisions based on all that is going on today and the fact that the government in any capacity rarely gets held accountable for wrongdoing. I agree we need to wait for more information to come to a final conclusion. But you have to admit so far it isn't looking good. Police departments are really good at releasing information that makes them look better. But nothing here. I say people who wield violence against the populace have to be held to a high level of integrity and punished when they break it. We shouldn't be crazy or illogical. But we also sure excuse oppression because we think policemen will be scared of doing their job. Those who are frightened off by accountability shouldn't be policemen. We also shouldn't punish people making difficult, split second decision. There has to be clear misconduct.
I thought Jaxson Hayes was smarter than this. Resisting arrest just seems to be the status quo in the Black community. I don't get it. You can't keep mad at the police when they use force because your dumb *** wants to fight them. Video shows police using stun gun on Pels' Hayes
If you are arrested, think of the possible ways you can undercut the evidence against you. It’s never going to be more clear to you than at that point. Ask the magistrate for bail, walk out and hire an attorney. If you think you were picked out for arrest, then make your case with your attorney. Don’t set a trial date until you have a reasonable understanding of the case on the DA side. I’ve seen admittedly few trials since my HS buddy is a parole officer. However If you have a semblance of an argument, you will get by with a light or no sentence.
** Civil Asset Forfeiture - I think it is a useful tool and should be retained but it does need to be reformed by 1) the funds should not go to the LE agency. They should go to some other community improvement org like Childhood Advocacy or something else. 2) Everything must be returned unless there is a conviction on a related charge. I think this would keep agencies from taking low end assets that are likely going to be more cost/effort to keep than they are worth. The point of CAF is to hit the high end criminals in their pockets, not to fund the agency. **QI - that is the hardest one to solve IMO. Being a cop is the most demanding job there is IMO. Harder than soldier, harder than firefighter, ER doc, etc, etc. and more so now than ever before. #1. Cops are typically dealing with the worst of us, and if not the worst of us, then at least, Us on our worst day. #2 they often have to make split second decisions with less than a complete picture. #3 We expect them to be prepared to handle everything from saving puppies to taking on criminals with a possible weapons advantage. QI needs to be retained, but we need to do more to get rid of repeat offenders. I would rather give an officer QI a single pass on a really bad decision, than give an officer repeated passes on moderately bad decisions. Some sort of cumulative scoring/tracking system should be in place to get rid of the folks that have either figured out how to routinely tiptoe right up to the line, or shown themselves incapable of appreciating where the line is. **Labor Unions - Perhaps there is a way to have an internal LEO review board with recommendations to release/retain officers. Good cops may be willing to watch their buddies' backs in a public way but perhaps they would be more willing to anonymously vote to get rid of an officer that they sensed was bad for the force overall. Many corporations do Peer and Subordinate feedback reports these days. Maybe a similar approach could be applied to LEO's.
And 3) There should be a high standard for seizure - proof or preponderance of evidence, not just suspicion, and the asset needs to have been gained only due to the crime, not merely possibly tangentially related by some stretch. And then 4) abusing 1-3 and seizing improperly should itself be considered a crime.
I agree Statalyzer, but how do you know the assets were gained due to the crime of a suspect before they have had a trial yet? Part of presumed innocence should be the protection of the private property of citizens until they are proven guilty. Taking someone's property without conviction is state theft and shouldn't be tolerated by free people. Can't believe there is so much support for this kind of theft.
Asset forfeiture falls under civil practice, with a relaxed or lower burden to be met... Think in terms of the OJ wrongful death litigation...acquitted in criminal court and saddled with an eight-figure judgment in civil.
mb227, how is that relevant to a policeman or court wiping out a person's bank account just because of some suspicion? That doesn't sound relevant.
Antifa are only active in Leftist cities. The leftist of the left. You would think these leftists would start to understand that they are basically covering for or facilitating violence. If the people don't wise up they deserve a brick through their window. They are either going to have to move right politically or suffer violence in their neighborhoods from these communists.
Philadelphia to pay $2M to Black woman beaten by officers, separated from toddler during unrest The child was lost because they pulled the mother out of the car and beat her. Disgusting. That chapter of the FOP should be disbanded over that ****.
What? George Floyd's family got $27million for George being a fukked-up drug addicted, house invading, armed robbery committing, pregnant woman menacing, counterfeiting thug. I smell racism and inequality. It is pretty cool that home girl got $2mm for taking her baby to a riot. Next, she'll get Parent of the Year, a bronze star presented by Jan. 6 war hero AOC, and a spot on Cuomo's Emmy winning show, "How to Kill Granny Using Covid".
Based on Democrat estimates of this horrific incident, which is more horrible than Armageddon, 3,300 assaults took place, 17 deaths, the end of policing in New York, and a partridge in a pear tree.
I missed this at the time it was posted... It is analogous in demonstrating that civil law and criminal law standards ARE different. CAF is civil. There is ALSO a modicum of due process which attaches before the forfeiture is finalized. If one legitimately acquired the asset, proving up its provenance is NOT a difficult task.
There are some horror stories of legitimate resources being effectively stolen by cops. Makes sense that you'd support that kind of authoritarianism.
So an outlier of an event makes a program bad? Supporting something that takes assets out of the hands of criminals should be applauded. But then again, you support a party that wants to molly-coddle criminals, so it does not surprise me that you look for the outlier and use it to condemn a program. Maybe you can also go protest the setting aside of the verdict in the Noor case since you hate law enforcement so much...
