Happy now BLM?

Except that the use of force is sadly part of the officers job in the same way cutting a patient is a part of a surgeons job.

If a surgeon screws up in a non fatal but serious manner then you'd think losing his licence was a severe punishment.

One strike and you're out will terminate this behaviour very quickly.

As for financial restitution for the victim that would normally come from the employer not the employee surely? There should be restitution but I'd think the force would be held liable for their employees actions.

If a doctor on purpose does not follow procedure that will lose him his license and job, ánd open him for prosecution and civil lawsuits.

Whether the employer or employee is responsible for paying depends an whether department procedures are followed I guess. If you are doing your job in a way your employer waves you to do it, then he should be liable. But if you clearly acted against policy you should be personally liable.

Basically if, as you claim, there is no institutional problem, just bad apples, surely you agree that individuals should be liable? If I wilfully breach company policy I am pretty sure I can be held responsible personally. There is a difference between making mistakes and committing illegal acts. Hell I'm not even allowed to follow my bosses orders if I think they are illegal, unsafe, or have risks for our product.

Liability extends beyond just policy. I pay all sorts of insurance to cover lots of eventualities and in a previous employment had to make a claim against insurance for the actions of an employee that were not our fault.

The prosecutor is in this instance saying the employee did what was permitted (using force) but did it inappropriately, which is grounds for dismissal but not prosecution. If everyone who is inappropriate is dismissed it won't take long before there is nobody left who is inappropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Except that the use of force is sadly part of the officers job in the same way cutting a patient is a part of a surgeons job.

---

A better comparison would be to a cancer doctor who immediately jumps to surgery without considering chemo or radiation.

Quote:

---

As for financial restitution for the victim that would normally come from the employer not the employee surely? There should be restitution but I'd think the force would be held liable for their employees actions.

---

The employer in this case being the tax paying citizens. Although cities has started to make bad cops personally financially responsible so that they can claim bankruptcy and the victim gets nothing while the cop, department, and city walk away free and clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

For deliberate unjustifiable assault and a likely violation of a person's civil rights? Getting away with just resigning? I don't think that's punishment, no. That's just the bare minimum needed to save face and protect the public a little. It's like saying, "Oh, it looks like you don't know how to do your job properly. Maybe you shouldn't work here :)"

Punishment would be to impose additional fines or otherwise appropriate sentence all the way up to prison time. Restitution for the victim would entail eg. financial compensation.

Losing your license for "screwing up" is a pretty severe punishment, yes. But there's screwing up and then there's deliberately doing something grossly inappropriate to the point of being arguably criminal.

---

If not for the body cams, Yourse would be in jail right now and the cop would have got his promotion. The body cams did their job perfectly.

Interesting to see what set the cop off. As soon as Yourse said on the phone that he was "being harassed" the cop lost it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

A better comparison would be to a cancer doctor who immediately jumps to surgery without considering chemo or radiation.

---

Absolutely!

Quote:

---

The employer in this case being the tax paying citizens. Although cities has started to make bad cops personally financially responsible so that they can claim bankruptcy and the victim gets nothing while the cop, department, and city walk away free and clear.

---

That doesn't sound like progress to me. There's a reason employers are held legally liable, holding someone who's just lost their job liable is begging for a bankruptcy so they get nothing outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

If not for the body cams, Yourse would be in jail right now and the cop would have got his promotion. The body cams did their job perfectly.

---

Thank you exactly. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the much improved, to get rid of cops like this and to acquit the innocent like Yourse and let him see justice instead is progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Liability extends beyond just policy. I pay all sorts of insurance to cover lots of eventualities and in a previous employment had to make a claim against insurance for the actions of an employee that were not our fault.

---

Yes, but if your employee would, say, beat up a client of yours, he would personally be liable for prosecution (assuming it's not your company policy to beat up clients).

Quote:

---

The prosecutor is in this instance saying the employee did what was permitted (using force) but did it inappropriately, which is grounds for dismissal but not prosecution. If everyone who is inappropriate is dismissed it won't take long before there is nobody left who is inappropriate.

---

That's a bullshit argument though. You're saying because cops sometimes have to use force they can always do it without fear of prosecution.

I agree that not everybody who uses force inappropriately should be prosecuted by the way. They should not even always be fired. Circumstances matter, sometimes retraining or a Slaap on the wrist can be enough. Sometimes firing can be enough. I'm not even judging this particular case, I'm glad he's fired though. But as a general statement, he's basically giving carte blanche to officers using force whenever they feel like it without risking more than their jobs.


Oh and regarding the doctor analogy, also keep in mind that doctors who lose their license also lose 6+ years and tonnes of money they invested in their own education, which makes it a bit harsher penalty for them than for police officers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Yes, but if your employee would, say, beat up a client of yours, he would personally be liable for prosecution (assuming it's not your company policy to beat up clients).

---

Yes he would be personally liable for prosecution, but if he did so in our employment we'd be liable to pay any damages.

Quote:

---

That's a bullshit argument though. You're saying because cops sometimes have to use force they can always do it without fear of prosecution.

---

I'm not saying that. I'm saying there are different levels of abuse.

There is clearly acceptable use of force - no harm, no foul.
There is borderline cases use of force - benefit of the doubt will have to go to the employee (unless its a repeated issue) but more training or supervision could be necessary.
There are marginally unacceptable uses of force - some form of training or punishment probably necessary (eg suspension, disciplinary action, retraining etc)
There are unacceptable uses of force ... like this incident ... where the officer may have thought he was justified but wasn't and should have known he wasn't - either severe punishment or dismissal
Then there are grossly evil abuses where the officer couldn't possibly have thought he was justified ... these should be prosecuted too.

The final one would I imagine be extremely rare and to continue with the medical analogy would be akin to Doctor Harold Shipman over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes he would be personally liable for prosecution, but if he did so in our employment we'd be liable to pay any damages.

---

I think what Flixy is getting at is that it's more accurate to say that you'd be liable as well. The fact that you share liability does not remove his own liability, for damages as surely as prosecution. He's just more judgement-proof via having smaller pockets.

Indeed, I'm not arguing against that. And people will always sue the deeper pockets (unless they get too deep).

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2820609

Whiny little SJW

I get legal technicalities preventing a criminal conviction and that doesn't really bug me (unless they were only introduced as a consequence of the PD's stonewalling but even then, I have to tolerate it and just wish for the PD to get sued again). But that they didn't fire even the proven rapist. . .

Lewk: he resisted arrest. He deserved it. He should be jailed for his own rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Lewk: he resisted arrest. He deserved it. He should be jailed for his own rape.

---

Nah, I'm pretty sure he's gonna pin this one on liberals and unions. Obama should have gotten in touch with the police dept. much sooner though, he really dropped the ball on this one :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2820609

Whiny little SJW

---

No this is the whiny little SJW type crap:

https://www.thefire.org/northeastern...th-punishment/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Nah, I'm pretty sure he's gonna pin this one on liberals and unions. Obama should have gotten in touch with the police dept. much sooner though, he really dropped the ball on this one :rolleyes:

---

You jest but I bet the union backed the officers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

No this is the whiny little SJW type crap:

https://www.thefire.org/northeastern...th-punishment/

---

Nice dodge :heart:

Hello, folks!
At present, the problem of abuse and violence is quite common in the relationships of adolescents and children, the situation aggravates due to the Internet where everybody can offend and insult not being punished, thus, many modest and shy girls and boys are not able to retaliate, follow this source to find out what to undertake in this situation
<Removed Link ~ RB>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivia96

Hello, folks!
At present, the problem of abuse and violence is quite common in the relationships of adolescents and children, the situation aggravates due to the Internet where everybody can offend and insult not being punished, thus, many modest and shy girls and boys are not able to retaliate, follow this source to find out what to undertake in this situation
<Removed Link ~ RB>

---

Spam bot?

Sure looks like it.

I've removed the links. Olivia if you're a genuine poster then welcome and please join a conversation, if you're a spam bot then I'll remove any links and ban the account.

https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/787041264126398464

Time to start profiling white conservative dudes. Maybe run some extra patrols in white conservative neighborhoods, especially if the people in those neighborhoods aren't willing to say who the radicals are. Right, Lewk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/787041264126398464

Time to start profiling white conservative dudes. Maybe run some extra patrols in white conservative neighborhoods, especially if the people in those neighborhoods aren't willing to say who the radicals are. Right, Lewk?

---

Nonsense. Didn't you read, Loki, they were targeting refugees. Refugees aren't citizens, they don't count as real people.

And they're black. Maybe these white terrorists were fearful for their lives!

Have you turned in any white militia member to the FBI, Lewk? How can the rest of the country know that you can be trusted?

Something something liberal media and irresponsible immigration policies breeding frustration mumble mumble this is really Obama's fault

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...eeing-suspect/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...l_outcome.html

Bizarre.

I believe the jury has what's called a "Lewk".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/ny...cial-bias.html

But let's keep on pretending the legal system treats all races equally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...eeing-suspect/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...l_outcome.html

Bizarre.

---

Jury system, it happens.

Though once again you have a situation where if the suspect hadn't run he likely wouldn't have gotten shot.

When I say "bizarre" I actually mean "disgusting".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Jury system, it happens.

Though once again you have a situation where if the suspect hadn't run he likely wouldn't have gotten shot.

---

The legal system is supposed to deal with the law, not with your (or anyone else's) warped moral code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The legal system is supposed to deal with the law, not with your (or anyone else's) warped moral code.

---

What's your solution? Stop having juries? All it takes is one person for it to be a hung jury. Note: That doesn't mean the guy gets to walk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The legal system is supposed to deal with the law, not with your (or anyone else's) warped moral code.

---

Doesn't jury selection rely on inflection points of warped moral code?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The legal system is supposed to deal with the law, not with your (or anyone else's) warped moral code.

---

No that is ignorant, its meant to deal with both, hence why we have juries.

Though I thought to deal with single people's obstructionism that judges were allowed to permit the jury to reach 11-1 decisions to reach a conviction and don't require unanimity? Is that not the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

What's your solution? Stop having juries? All it takes is one person for it to be a hung jury. Note: That doesn't mean the guy gets to walk.

---

In practice, it usually does. It's incredibly difficult for the prosecution to win after a mistrial. It doesn't even try most of the time.

For starters, we could have judges decide cases involving people carrying out violence while representing the government. We already do for soldiers (in some circumstances).

So eliminate trial by jury?

I certainly wouldn't cry if that happens. The constitution guarantees it though. But that right only applies to "criminal prosecutions". Call prosecutions against cops who carry out crimes in their public capacity something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No that is ignorant, its meant to deal with both, hence why we have juries.

Though I thought to deal with single people's obstructionism that judges were allowed to permit the jury to reach 11-1 decisions to reach a conviction and don't require unanimity? Is that not the case?

---

I can't recall if it's permissible with lesser offenses in some jurisdictions but conviction of a capital crime absolutely does require unamity, no matter what state or jurisdiction the trial is in. What is kinda surprising is that the judge was considering accepting a hung verdict at 11-1, after only three days deliberation. It is a murder trial, there is only one holdout, most judges would (and quite properly should) already be inclined to let peer pressure beat on that holdout. Dockets are overcrowded of course, but other business can proceed while the jury is deliberating so. . .

Does that mean jury selection is not all that important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I certainly wouldn't cry if that happens. The constitution guarantees it though. But that right only applies to "criminal prosecutions". Call prosecutions against cops who carry out crimes in their public capacity something else.

---

So you're now so illiberal you're not only OK with ending basic human rights like trial by jury but you're also OK with attempting an end run around the Constitution to deny these basic constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Trial by jury is a basic human right?