Slashdot Mirror


Baton Bob Receives $20,000 Settlement For Coerced Facebook Post

McGruber writes: After arresting him during a June 2013 street performance, Atlanta Police Officers forced costumed street performer "Baton Bob" to make a pro-police statement on his Facebook page before they would allow him to be released on bond. Social media coverage of the incident triggered a six-month internal police investigation into the arrest. Atlanta Police Officer H.J. Davis was given a one-day suspension, then resigned from the Atlanta Police department a few weeks later. Atlanta Police Lt. Jeffrey Cantin received a five-day suspension for "violating responsibilities of a supervisor".

Baton Bob also filed a federal lawsuit against the city, arguing that officers made a wrongful arrest that violated, well, nearly every constitutional right you can name. Those included Jamerson's "right to free speech, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his right to privacy." The City of Atlanta's legal department reviewed the case and determined that a $20,000 settlement would "be in the best interest of the city" rather than fighting the claims in court.

201 comments

  1. The song remains the same by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Screw the Atlanta taxpayers while Davis and Cantin skate. Typical.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Why do the taxpayers have to pay? In essence, Baton Bob has to fork up some money to pay for the misdeads of those who forced him to write the post.

      But $20,000 for a facebook post might be a new record income for posting.

    2. Re:The song remains the same by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      20k is child's play. It isn't the value of his post, it is the duress in which it was forced to be made.

    3. Re:The song remains the same by firex726 · · Score: 2

      You'd think cities would care more given how stretched their budgets are becoming of late.

    4. Re:The song remains the same by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?

    5. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree, I wish this sort of thing would happen to me, but of course it wouldn't because I know my rights. But if it were me, I'd sue the officer, the mayor, the police chief and basically the entire justice system personally. Any settlements would require them to take out front page advertisements in every major news outlet in the country saying that they were personally embarrassed for allowing such a thing to happen under their watch, that they were personally responsible for it and that they were resigning immediately. And if they refused to those terms, than the cash settlement would be for everything they own. But of course, these people settle for a pathetic 20k with no admission to guilt. That's my big one, I want these bastards to have to admit guilt.

    6. Re:The song remains the same by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cities will go completely bankrupt before they even think of reining in their police.

    7. Re:The song remains the same by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?

      The same people who pay for everything, all the time...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    8. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the tax payers keep electing assholes.

      At least this asshole had the balls to fire the bigger asshole: Kelvin Cochran.

    9. Re:The song remains the same by Livius · · Score: 1

      Because they have ultimate responsibility.

    10. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?

      The same people who pay for everything, all the time...

      That's right. Now ... bend over, get a firm grip on your ankles, and for your own comfort please apply a generous amount of K-Y, Astroglide, or similar safe substance to your puckered brown star. Yes, that will make everything easier for everyone. That's a good citizen.

      P.S. We hope you continue to believe whatever shit our corporate partners manage to shovel onto your TV. Since you obviously don't believe in yourself and your neighbors, we will give you something or another to believe in. We'll come up with something^H I mean we will use our wisdom. Just relax and watch some meaningless show and stop thinking about it.

    11. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the solution is simple: Baton Bob should turn down the settlement offer and make the city pay the expense needed to continue with a trial. Use the offer of settlement as potential acknowledgement of guilt. Granted, that last part will never fly but make the city go thru the steps to show such to be the case.

    12. Re:The song remains the same by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Use the offer of settlement as potential acknowledgement of guilt. Granted, that last part will never fly but make the city go thru the steps to show such to be the case.

      An offer to settle is not an acknowledgement of guilt, and trying to present it as such in court would likely result in sanctions for misconduct. Settlement negotiations are almost always covered by confidentiality agreements, and judges take violations of those agreements very seriously.

    13. Re:The song remains the same by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      which makes the whole settlement system bullshit.

      also it's common that through the settlement process the crimes committed turn into whole other crimes. and what does that mean? that the statistics will never be correct.

      besides though, the dismissal of the officers involved is an admission of guilt.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody's trying to do more with less. IMO, cutting budges for police departments will only result in them using shortcuts to try and make up the coverage deficit. You'll end up with more situations like this. Police are absolutely a primary function of local government, and should be at the very top of the list of "do not cut", but unfortunately that is not often the actual case. Note that there are many places where the police can't even go on strike (UK for example).

    15. Re:The song remains the same by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      which makes the whole settlement system bullshit.

      It makes the settlement system workable. No one is going to engage in good faith negotiations if any offer made can be used against them in court, or in the newspapers.

      also it's common that through the settlement process the crimes committed ...

      This is a civil case, not a criminal case.

      the dismissal of the officers involved is an admission of guilt.

      The officers were not dismissed. One of them quit. The other was suspended for 5 days.

    16. Re:The song remains the same by spikesahead · · Score: 2

      The policeman camera is the best reign of all, and many cities are implementing it.

    17. Re:The song remains the same by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      But $20,000 for a facebook post might be a new record income for posting.

      Common, nobody expects you to read TFA but at least read the 2nd paragraph of the summary. The Facebook post was only one part of it. And like the previous commenter pointed it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a Facebook post, it was because it was under duress, it would have been the same thing in the olden days if it were a letter to the editor or statement to the media.

      And anyway, you probably only read the title, because if you had read the summary at all you would have seen that the Facebook post was only one part of it. The lawsuit was for wrongful arrest, and he should have got more than $20k. APD will just look at that as a cost of doing business. At least the officer "quit," but the lieutenant should have been fired too instead of a whopping 5 day suspension. There is documentation that he willfully tried to cover up the incident when he should have been throwing the book at the officer. I would suspect that the officer was given only 1 day suspension under the agreement that he would quit, but when it comes to violating people's constitutional rights so egregiously that shit shouldn't be done behind closed doors. He should have been fired and make it very public why to deter other officers from doing the same bullshit and give confidence to the public that such behavior from officers is not tolerated. Instead it sends the message "whatever, go ahead and violate people's right and arrest them just because you find them annoying, all you'll get is a 1 day suspension and your boss will help cover it up."

    18. Re:The song remains the same by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The settlement should come straight out of the police retirement fund.

    19. Re:The song remains the same by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      civil? huh? why not a criminal case.
      prosecutor should be prosecuted for not bringing a criminal case then...

      and it's used in newspapers now already against them. the reason they would do a settlement is to get off cheaper.

      anyways, settlements are common in criminal cases as well. the whole settlement system needs to go - it's a joke internationally and seemingly makes the prosecution first try to up the charges so they can settle down so they don't need to go to court and instead can blackma.. "negotiate" the culprit to admit to something lower - which makes the whole system a joke and not a justice system(the law has certain punishments for certain crimes, it's not supposed to be a negotiation and the court is supposed to find out what happened).

      for example if the prosecution has evidence that someone murdered someone, they damn well should prosecute it as a murder and not try to make a deal for manslaughter - and if they have just evidence of it being a manslaughter then they should prosecute it as such! it's not the prosecutions job to make a deal with the culprit about what the crime was...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    20. Re:The song remains the same by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      Or offer to go a few rounds with the bade-wearing perp. Proceeds from the boxing match can go to a charity of his choice.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    21. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.
      The whole settlement system just causes people to be charged with more severe crimes, and then they haggle over the outcome.
      That's not justice. If there is even a 1% chance of ending up on death row, then of course most people will consider admitting to something they didn't do.

    22. Re:The song remains the same by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Should've been more like 20,000,000

    23. Re:The song remains the same by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      No, the settlement should come straight out of the individual's pocket. If that means taking the (former) officer's car and his home, then so be it.

      Punish the ones who are guilty. The other officers and the taxpayers aren't guilty.

    24. Re:The song remains the same by Archtech · · Score: 1

      When the heat's on, you will see hyenas eat one another.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    25. Re:The song remains the same by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?

      So where in the US are the police elected by the local citizens? I've never heard of this happening. It certainly hasn't been the practice in or near any place I've ever lived.

      I've also never seen any candidate in any election running on a promise to do "misdeeds", so I've never actually been able to vote for or against a candidate on that basis. It'd be interesting to know where this is done, and why it isn't done where I've lived.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    26. Re:The song remains the same by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      They should have been fired, arrested, tried, and hopefully convicted. The prosecutor's office works daily with the cops they are unable to oversee them being far to close and familiar.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    27. Re:The song remains the same by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Hitting the retirement fund would change the cop culture of mutual ass-covering in situations like this. Instead of dashcam recordings that mysteriously disappear when a court case impends, you would have cops informing on each other to protect the fund.

    28. Re:The song remains the same by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      A Sheriff is often elected, other than that most police aren't elected. However, the people who give them their marching orders (District Attorney, Mayor) often are elected so that is where voter pressure needs to be applied. Not that it will do much good, both dominant political parties in the US are quite authoritarian so it is unlikely any serious action will be taken against the police departments.

      --

      Enigma

    29. Re:The song remains the same by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Nobody is self-appointed. City council is voted in, the city council hires the police. Utlimately the police employers are the citizens who pay the taxes. If the citizens want better police then they need to put pressure on the city councils, possibly by voting other people in. Sure, you don't knew with new candidates whether or not they'll provide stronger oversight of the police or not and mistakes are bound to be made.

      Ultimately though, if there's going to be a legal judgement then the money comes from tax payers. There is no one else to pay it, unless you think there's a magic pool of money from the feds to do this, but that pool comes from tax payers too. As far as the $20,000 settlement, that's a tiny pittance for the city of Atlanta, and they saved a lot of money by settling instead of defending themselves.

    30. Re:The song remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw the taxpayers? Looks like that $20k settlement saved them millions...

    31. Re:The song remains the same by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have the incentives straight.

      You're a police officer. Your fellow police officer, Fred, does a wrongful arrest with violence and such. The victim sues.

      You have a chance to "lose" the dashcam recordings. If you do so, the odds better that the suit fails and your pension fund is a little safer. If you do the right thing, and hand over the recordings, then your pension will suffer.

      It will provide an incentive to try to get Fred to follow the law, but it provides a direct incentive to deny the victim justice.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:The song remains the same by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      My point is that legislation making the retirement fund liable for police malpractice settlements would de-incenticize the bad behavior before it actually happens.

    33. Re:The song remains the same by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Police cameras only work well when there are _severe_ disciplinary penalties for failing to activate one, or selectively deactivating it.

      I've lost track of the number of reports I've seen where cruiser dashcams failed to operate at inconvenient moments. This is why modern systems are tamper-resistant and that in turn is helping expose more bent cops.

    34. Re:The song remains the same by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The policeman camera is the best reign of all,

      From a country (most likely, this being Slashdot) where the reign of monarchs was overthrown by terrorists over two centuries ago, and where the national self-image is as a cowboy clutching the reins of his horse and riding off into the sunset ... I find the inability to distinguish the two homophones particularly hilarious.

      And it seems to rapidly be becoming a more common misspelling.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. only 20 grand? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    make it higher, give the cops a reason to NOT do it again

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because the cops are paying the fine out of their pockets.

    2. Re:only 20 grand? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      i forgot to add

      make the cops pay out of pocket

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's only right that the citizens pay for it. They voted for the government, they should pay for the consequences of voting poorly.

    4. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, let the cop's families pay it out of pocket.

      They know who they live with.

    5. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, see how long the "good" cops tolerate the bad ones if their pension fund gets smaller with each incident.

    6. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Make them pay from their pension funds, I suggest 50% from the officer responsible, and the other 50% from his collegues to help incentivise them to police themselves.

    7. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Weird, in my city, the mayor has the most influence on the police department and can actually shut them down. In your city does the police department receive funding from somewhere other than town coffers? You live somewhere really odd indeed.

      If the mayor can stop the cash flow, he can choose the police chief. Obviously, if he does it for a bad reason, there would be a revolt. If he does it because the police are crooked then the citizens will enjoy seeing the force suffer.

    8. Re:only 20 grand? by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would be willing to bet that less than 50% of the people voted for the current administration in any given town. So why should the majority have to pay for the bad judgement of the minority?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:only 20 grand? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If you mean less than 50% of eligible voters, it's their own damn fault. If you mean less than 50% of total population, I agree.

    10. Re:only 20 grand? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not my fault. I voted for the guy that's honest, hard working, and looking out for my personal interests!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:only 20 grand? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Make the city the cop lives in pay for it out of pocket!

      They know who their citizens are.

    12. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers' leavings! (A load of old cobblers' *). You so did not vote for Santa Claus! I suppose at least he's more believable than an honest, hard working, looking out for the constituents politician.

    13. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with you, but the libertarian view has zero traction, so the reality is everyone suffers for the mob's poor decisions (the same way you suffer because the mob wanted a new item X paid for with your taxes that is worthless to you, because "social contract").

    14. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest criminal charges against the officers responsible. Wouldn't let him go before he made the post?

      Charge them with kidnapping, same as OJ.

    15. Re:only 20 grand? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      Out of karma, but yes, basically this.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    16. Re:only 20 grand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, that's what cities like Ferguson do...

    17. Re:only 20 grand? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They said that if I voted for McCain that we would get 8 more years of Bush policies.

      They were right. I voted for McCain and then we got 8 more years of Bush policies.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. Well, I'm torn. by bistromath007 · · Score: 2

    My gut reaction is that our civil rights are going real cheap these days.

    On the other hand, I could really use $20k. I need a new car by next month or I'm fucked.

    1. Re:Well, I'm torn. by v1 · · Score: 1

      While it would be nice to see someone grow a pair and say "Nope, I'm not here for hush money, I'm here for my pound of flesh. So buckle up and prepare for some publicity and federal exposure." it's also hard for me to honestly say I wouldn't turn down a free 20g.

      It does seem a bit low though? If it were significantly larger, well, everyone has their price, but 20g is really flying low.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Well, I'm torn. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      when you figure taxes on it (you KNOW you will be taxed) it makes it easier to turn down

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Well, I'm torn. by slickwillie · · Score: 3

      What's that, about $4-5,000 per amendment?

    4. Re:Well, I'm torn. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      if you have 20 grams, you should probably give it to gangadude. I bet he'd appreciate it ;)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Well, I'm torn. by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Lawsuit proceeds are not taxed by the Feds -- the theory being that it's not income, rather it represents an attempt at making you whole after a loss. It's the same theory as your insurance company paying the cash value of your car after you total it. That payment isn't taxed either.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Well, I'm torn. by preaction · · Score: 1

      The value of rights are not adjusted for inflation, sorry.

  4. ain't no thang by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    pay the 20 grain

  5. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah what a bunch of fucking NIGGERS COONS JIGABOOS PORCH-MONKEYS .

    I said the FORBIDDEN WORDS. Oh noes! It is now your duty to mod me down. You are a terrible horrible human being if you have a sense of humor, are mature enough not to be easily offended by harmless words, and mod this up just to piss off the infantile narrow-minded easily-offended douchebags who keep trying to tell others what they should say and think, how they should live, how they should feel, etc. Yes you absolutely have to mod this down, for king and country! The king is political correctness and the country used to believe in free speech and celebrate it even if it was offensive. If it makes you feel better: HONKEYS! CRACKAS! WHITE DEVILS!! PALE MOTHERFUCKERS!!! Of course they don't just cancel out, since white people think getting upset over words you read on the internet is ridiculous and gives too much power to random strangers.

    The tyrants who really run things want you to think of EVERYTHING that ever happens to ANYONE in terms of group identity. They definitely don't want you to be individuals. That doesn't make you so easy to control, no not at all. You must be pigeonholed by type. What type, that doesn't matter. But you must be a type and have lots of other people be another type. Then you are easy to divide and conquer. Tribalism at its best and most exploitable, sort of like a buffer overflow in the human psyche. Tyrants figured this shit out long ago. So did advertisers. Anyway why are you reading this? You have some down-modding to do. Can't have truth in too high of a concentration, now can we? Makes the sheeple nervous and uncomfortable. Questioning the beliefs they have been taught to hold sacred (and asking who benefits from them thinking so) is not something they are used to, no not at all. I read the Constitution and I couldn't find a "right to always be comfortable with the facts of life" nor "right to never ever be offended even though that depends on my CHOICE to be offended but I'm too un-enlightened to realize that" anywhere in the damn thing.

  6. $20,000 is less than going to court by roccomaglio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was formally involved with city government. The $20,000 settlement was less than going to court would have cost. Even a declaratory judgment was said to cost at least $20,000.

    1. Re:$20,000 is less than going to court by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      To be honest, you got a really good deal there. This guy did you a favor by settling for so little.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. not far enough. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    All the officers involved should be recorded being tazed over and over again and the video put on youtube.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:not far enough. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They should be put on some type of national-level "bad cop list" so no jurisdiction in the US can ever hire them as law enforcement again. Unfortunately, nothing like that exists and these "bad cops" just move somewhere else and end up violating people's rights in their new town.

    2. Re:not far enough. by rjh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think the people who hire cops don't bother to check with previous employers and do Google searches on new applicants, you need your head examined. These two are done. They're not going to work as cops ever again.

    3. Re:not far enough. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would not bet that way. There are pnumerous private security companies, and even mercenary companies listed as "security contractors", who pay very nice hiring bonuses for trained policemen. And for tough districts short of capable policemen, such as Ferguson, Missouri this year, they're going to be taking whatever they can get.

    4. Re:not far enough. by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These two are done. They're not going to work as cops ever again.

      They may not work for a police department again, but there are probably many places where they can be hired as a sherriff's deputy. Even working as a police officer isn't beyond the realm of possiblity -- none of them was fired.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:not far enough. by Livius · · Score: 1

      I doubt if any other police force would hire them after this.

      Not for what they did, of course, but because they got caught.

    6. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The guy who shot Tamir Rice was fired from his previous (police) job because of an inability to follow basic instructions and dangerous loss of composure during weapons training. And yet he got hired, again, as a policeman. And then he killed a 12 year old. So, I would suggest maybe you're the one in need of a head exam.

      Fake edit: CAPTCHA is "killed", oddly enough.

    7. Re:not far enough. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No criminal charges. Were they even officially fired with cause? Or did they get the "resign before we fire you" choice, so they could say "they lost their jobs" but also let them say they were never fired, should they apply to be a cop elsewhere?

      Yeah, these guys could get another job. It's not like people line up to be cops. Low pay, high risk. That's why it attracts the violent wife-beaters and such.

    8. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies that have unethical hiring practices don't count. You might as well be saying "Yeah, but they can still get work for the mafia, so we didn't do enough." Ruining the lives of these police officers will not... Shoot, I forgot what it was they did again? They ruined this guy's life? Like made it so he could never work again, or something like that?

    9. Re:not far enough. by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Why not have the Atlanta P.D. place a pro-Baton-Bob statement on their Facebook page and other social media accounts, prominently stating how he's a valued citizen and a community treasure? That would at least be more proportionate, even it's not wholly accurate.

    10. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with the huge number of police counties, they probably won't even need to move. They'd be within easy commute distance.

    11. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some cities, like Dallas, do have "bad cop lists" but they are kept secret by the District Attorney's office. They are only used to throw out certain cases, probably the ones that would have ended up with the city of Dallas being taken to court for millions. The bad cops are still on the streets every day.

    12. Re:not far enough. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not like people line up to be cops. Low pay, high risk.

      That's not as true as you might think. Here are the most dangerous jobs (# of deaths per 100,000):

      Logging workers: 127.8
      Fishermen: 117.0
      Aircraft pilots: 53.4
      Roofers: 40.5
      Garbage collectors: 36.8
      Electrical power line installation/repair: 29.8
      Truck drivers: 22.8
      Oil and gas extraction: 21.9
      Farmers and ranchers: 21.3
      Construction workers: 17.4

      More recently, policing has gotten even lessdangerous.

      And yes, people do in fact "line up" to be police officers. I live a block and a half away from the police academy here in Chicago, and I've seen the lines that form when the police exam is taken. It's a lot of people. And as far as "low reward", that's debatable too. We're talking about a lifetime guaranteed pension after 20 years (not a 401k, but an actual pension. You have that at your job?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there is a counter example with the shooting of a homeless man in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

      Officer Sandy, who was involved in the shooting, was fired from the New Mexico State Police in 2007 over accusations of fraud. He was allegedly making money doing private security work while also on the force, KRQE reported.

      Just sayin'.

    14. Re:not far enough. by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Always surprises me that Aircraft pilots are so high on that list considering how safe air travel is. The rest make sense.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    15. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Statistics may including test pilots, fighter pilots, astronauts . . . and perhaps the early years of aviation.

    16. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Aircraft pilots" includes a lot more than passenger airliner pilots. There are many recreational pilots, who don't have quite the same same safety record as carefully-vetted commercial airliner captains. Then there helicopters, small charter planes, cropdusters, skywriters, test pilots, show pilots and military fighter pilots.

    17. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be relevent, it should by # deaths per # workers, not per capita

    18. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Garbage collectors?

      What in gods name are they doing to endanger themselves so badly?
      They rank higher than bloody construction jobs, oil and gas extraction and power line workers. WHAT?!

    19. Re:not far enough. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are hit by cars with some frequency?

    20. Re:not far enough. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      A few seconds searching Google for "fired police rehired" turns up hundreds of examples, and rehiring as a matter of policy or as a result of arbitration.

    21. Re:not far enough. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Check injury rates, not just fatalities. According to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/o..., the only work with higher national injury rates is nursing care.

    22. Re:not far enough. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Check injury rates, not just fatalities.

      The majority of injuries to police are from routine traffic accidents.

      My point was that the old chestnut about how police officers "put their lives on the line every day" is simply more true about truck drivers or garbage collectors than it is about cops.

      The "high risk/low reward" is just not that true.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah statistics. It all comes down to how you measure stuff. Air safety is normally stated in passenger kilometers. Its not hard to rack up a lot of passenger kilometers when you have 500 passengers travelling hundreds of kilometers per hour per "vehicle". Pilots rack up a lot of in flight time so its not hard to see why the numbers are high. Don't forget on the pilot sde you also have private aricraft, bush pilots, search and rescue, military etc. A lot of low passenger count ( relatively), high risk flying.

      So air travel "safety" is skewed towards passenger kilometers not pilot hours or head count. Same reality, different ways of counting. Its funny how airlines pick the way of counting that makes people the most comfortable. You'd almost think they had a vested interest in keeping passengers comfortable about flying, or something.

    24. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that there are a lot of small (single engine, propeller), old and not properly maintained air planes that ruin the statistics for all those who get to fly shiny, new passenger planes, for the big airlines.

    25. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake edit: CAPTCHA is "killed", oddly enough.

      Not so odd. The CAPTCHAs aren't random.

    26. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regularly moving large, heavy containers, and tipping the contents into large machines that compact it. Driving said machines. Emptying said machines.

    27. Re:not far enough. by Holi · · Score: 1

      Really, can you explain Officer Timothy Loehmann then?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    28. Re:not far enough. by Holi · · Score: 1

      So the Cleveland Police force.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    29. Re:not far enough. by Holi · · Score: 1

      Why? Timothy Loehmann got hired by a major city's police force, this after being deemed emotionally unstable and unfit for duty, especially in his handling of firearms.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    30. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even then, there's not very many of them, so it doesn't take many deaths to ratchet up that deaths/100,000 figure.

    31. Re:not far enough. by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      These are occupation statistics, so recreational flyers won't apply. However, the other occupations you mentioned are relevant, particularly small charter planes. For example, in Alaska there are tons of places that are only accessible from the air and there is a large charter plane and bush plane industry which often has to fly in challenging conditions.

      --

      Enigma

    32. Re:not far enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few of those listed are popular jobs and there are a huge number of police. Ranking it your way would push most of this list even higher and police even lower. You'd also get a ton of "professional bear taunter (100% deaths, n=2)" at the top of the list. It's be a fun list to read, but considerably less relevant.

    33. Re:not far enough. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Plus the chances of you shooting and killing someone without going to prison or even lose your job are incredibly high.

      You can Taze and Mace anyone you want at will.

      You can break all traffic laws at will for any reason at all, or even no reason at all.

      Being a cop means you are in the largest and best financed street gang there is.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    34. Re:not far enough. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      in my local city, the last 5 cops shot were shot by themselves or other police officers.

      Cops really suck at firearms, yet we allow them to openly carry them in public.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    35. Re:not far enough. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You can break all traffic laws at will for any reason at all, or even no reason at all.

      And the funny thing, Lumpy, is that this is exactly what leads to the most dangerous part of police work: traffic accidents.

      See, it turns out that the vast majority of on-the-job injuries to police officers come from routine traffic accidents. Not as part of high speed chases or driving their red and white '75 Ford Gran Torino through barricades while driving Huggy Bear to the crime scene, but rather by ignoring traffic lights on their way to Krispy Kreme.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:not far enough. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      in my local city, the last 5 cops shot were shot by themselves or other police officers.

      That reminds me of the Clint Eastwood line from Magnum Force:

      "A man's got to know his limitations."

      https://youtu.be/_VrFV5r8cs0

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:not far enough. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As I recall, air travel is safest in terms of fatalities per mile traveled. If you switch that to hours traveled, it's still safer than cars, but not the safest in general. If you switch it to fatalities per trip, it's actually more dangerous than cars. And commercial pilots basically just fly back & forth repeatedly, so they rack up that trip count pretty fast.

    38. Re:not far enough. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "If you think the people who hire cops don't bother to check with previous employers and do Google searches on new applicants, you need your head examined."

      It's quite clear that in a large number of cases this is exactly what doesn't happen.

      The issue of forged or "duress" glowing references is pandemic, but compounded by privacy breach litigation against former employers who've warned someone off hiring someone when references are followed up.

      This is why many former employers simply say "XYZ was employed from date A to date B", no matter what the actual employment history is and refuse to divulge anything more.

    39. Re:not far enough. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Allowing them to resign means they can keep their pensions.

      The same thing happens in the United Kingdom and people are getting pretty sick of it. There may be legal reforms on the horizon though.

      As for all the "there are plenty of good cops out there" - the answer is "not nearly enough of them. 'Good cops' who cover for bad cops are bad cops too"

    40. Re:not far enough. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Civil transport is extremely safe.

      Air cargo flying less so.

      General aviation has a safety record on par with motorcycle riding.

      Helicoptors, cropdusting, bush flying and others tend to be below that, with military flying coming dead last - which is one reason why military pilots are no longer the go-to guys for airlines - they tend to take risks and press on where a civilly trained pilot will call it quits and divert.

    41. Re:not far enough. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Which raises another question, are military pilots included in the general pilot category? You and some of the other posters are right about pilot being a fairly broad category which I didn't consider at first.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  8. some tor bridges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    54.169.192.59:8443 764B4D5F75C5DC7FFA5B8E6D66E99F1281AB0B1D
    108.173.216.231:443 744FA1801D0BA341956783AE0AA0CC50C7F3FF2C
    192.36.61.154:22212 FF46CA91F29E6D1A9453C602395E4E704C54430D

  9. You're in if you ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... use your smartphone to video cops like these.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  10. How it really works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a case I'd love to see go all the way through. $20.00 says he's taking the money.

  11. Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's time police misdeeds settlement be paid for from Police pension funds, if they lose a case, I suggest 50% from the officer responsible, and the other 50% from his collegues to help incentivise them to police themselves.

    1. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Police accountability? Are you joking? Then they might be afraid to shoot unarmed people to death, and they might be afraid that their fellow officers might also hold them accountable. And then they'd be scared of the people! And we can't have that, or else they might shoot unarmed people to death!

    2. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      What? And offend the police union? Do you have any idea how much money the unions spend to elect politicians who will never hold them accountable for things like this?

      Politics.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    3. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We do need to find some solution that holds the police themselves financially responsible for their misdeeds, otherwise the ones who behave recklessly have no incentive to stop doing so.

      I suggest 50% from the officer responsible, and the other 50% from his collegues to help incentivise them to police themselves

      I'm afraid that taking settlements out of the pension fund might have the opposite effect of what's intended. If you think it's hard getting cops to report or testify against one another now, imagine how bad it would be if their collective retirement benefits were at stake. The blue wall of silence would grow ten times as tall and ten times as thick. Officers would never speak ill of one another, knowing that if another officer is found guilty of a crime, their own pension fund takes a hit.

      Perhaps it's time we require all police officers to take out insurance policies for this sort of thing. As an example, many states require real estate brokers to maintain an errors and omissions (E&O) insurance policy covering a minimum of $1M. To sell houses. Surely it's not unreasonable that a police officer, authorized to use deadly force under color of law during the course of their job duties, could be made to carry insurance against the mistakes they might make... Mistakes which often have far more severe consequences than messing up a real estate contract.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    4. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      I think something more apt would be Malpractice Insurance that doctors and nurses have.

      I do agree that it should be required. It would mean that fines like this wouldn't hurt cities.

    5. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you have any idea how much money the unions spend to elect politicians who will never hold them accountable for things like this?

      No, how much do they spend?

    6. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      Or they might decide that being a police office is too financially risky and quit, en masse. Then we'd have no cops.
      I make mistakes at work, and my business sucks it up, how is this different?

    7. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They won't quit as such - they need jobs like everybody else. But you will get police apathy. Bank robbery? Police comes the next day looking for fingerprints or whatever. They won't show up for any kind of action - can't risk shooting a bystander or make a wrongful arrest. Or pissing of anyone with a good lawyer.

      Of course, cops must be seen doing something, so you'll see lots of tickets for illegal parking and such. Lots of cops willing to do motivational speeches at schools. But very little use of force - a situation to which criminals will adapt. The rich and the corporations will have hired security. The rest will onlye have themselves.

    8. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      If you make really obvious mistakes at work, and more than once, you might eventually be fired for bad performance.

      Which is exactly what should happen in this case:
      Even with only a high school education, cops should be able to understand the difference between arresting someone for assault and using extortion to get a pro-police statement on Facebook. If they don't get that or simply ignore Baton Bob's rights, they are unfit for duty. Get rid of them.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    9. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Skapare · · Score: 1

      your business lets you keep making mistakes

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    10. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by spiritplumber · · Score: 0

      Okay, now tell me about the downside.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    11. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it also wouldn't hurt the cops responsible - it would hurt the insurance companies. Considering the severity ...

      I would rather suggest each police department be required to maintain a fund to pay out cases like this - and if you cost that fund too much, you are demoted, beyond a high enough barrier - you are automatically fired.
      Money in the fund that wasn't needed at the end of the year could perhaps be paid out as bonuses - to reward the good cops, though this would need to be subject to very careful auditing so that it doesn't turn into an excuse not to report things. Perhaps you could go so far as to say "the left overs will be divided as bonusses only among cops who have filed reports of misconduct or willingly testified against bad cops".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they should have to pay for their own equipment too, hey.

    13. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure there is zero incentive to be a police officer, you're hated by virtually everyone, your pay is shit and you work shit hours.

      It's a wonder America has any police at all...

    14. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember a story about a fire house in CA that didn't want a woman in their ranks. When one was assigned to their house, they treated her abysmally. Sexual harassment, physical hazing, and I'm not talking borderline he said - she said but way over the line. She reported it to the chief who did nothing, and then went to the state. A court awarded her, as I recall, about $2M. Afterwards she returned to the fire house, and the same group of guys did the same thing again. The second time it went to court she was awarded something in the neighborhood of $7M, and afterwards she decided to retire instead of going back again.

      My point is that the people who were responsible for the problem, suffered little or no punishment and got exactly what they wanted - the woman out of their house. There's no incentive to improve or even change their behavior if the taxpayer is always going to pick up the tab.

    15. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If most people made mistakes like the cops are making lately, they'd be let go of pretty quick and the pension would be out the window. Cops are shooting civilians to death and not by mistake, like a stray bullet hits them. I think if I purposely killed someone at work and had no justification for it, it would be a hard sell. I doubt most of these cops have any options that are 1/10th as cushy as their jobs as LEOs, so I wouldn't worry about them quitting. I doubt they're suddenly going to all start working at starbucks because they're not allowed to abuse people .

    16. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Domestic disputes, one of the most dangerous duties for police, will get slower responses. People, especially bettered women and children as the most frequent victims, will die. Those are often cases where tempers are already flaring, and blaming, harassing, or trying to sue the officer who escorts a victim to shelter or helps the victim file charges is commonplace. Those are the kinds of cases where _limited_ immunity for the officers on the scene makes good sense.

      There is a useful description of such immunity at http://www.criminaldefenselawy....

    17. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by DUdsen · · Score: 1

      But you need to make sure that is a personal expense. because unless you specifically close any loophole that might allow for the department to pay insurance costs, you can be sure the cost of insurance will fall right back on the tax payers leaving nothing changed.

      As far as i know the responsibility and malpractice insurance required by doctors and lawyers can be company/clinic level and is not paid directly by "employees" but by the company they work for in most cases.

      A much better solution would be to remove all investigations of police misconduct or use of force from the local justice system who depend on good day to day working relations with the police. As the real problem here is that the only ones who can discipline a cop cannot function unless the police supports them.
      If the military justice system or a federal agency with no other domestic law enforcement responsibility then to police the police were automatically put in charge the minute any force are used by the police you would likely see a increase in convictions and a decrease in incidents.

    18. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably, they might shoot more people to death, rather than injury, because a dead person can't testify in court...

    19. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically when I see situations like this, I think of the culture of the police department. Rarely are police so bold to make such egregious violations of the law unless the higher-ups condone it, either explicitly or through bulwark of bureaucracy. The common narrative is that it is a few bad actors. That is complete bullshit. Most good cops act in spite of what the brass wants, not because of it.

      The unfortunate side effect is that several of the good officers leave, and the rest are just hoping to bide their time until they either retire or some outside force institutes changes, leaving a den of incompetence and corruption to act with impunity. I've heard officers free talk about planting evidence or not answering calls for assistance from officers who rock the boat. Before the whole things turns to shit, there were concerns raised from other officers that ultimately went nowhere. And this isn't unique to police work.

      Nope, what you really want is transparency and auditing. Police cameras that have immediate charges brought of tampering with evidence should they "malfunction" and audits from organizations outside of the justice department are a good start. Firings and loss of pensions starting with the police chief and working its way down to the culpable officer will also bring some accountability to the entire hierarchy. I can almost assure you this latest investigation is only the tip of the iceberg of a system that dysfunctional at its core.

    20. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is that it would eventually render bad cops uninsurable, and thus, unemployable.

      Really, though, these are all suggestions to get around the central issue; cops look out for their own, even in the face of blatantly criminal behavior. It's a cultural issue, more than anything.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    21. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the settlements should be a minimum of $100,000, with no max.

    22. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly Jack, don't you know that it is your responsibility to look that info up, instead of expecting the person making the claim to provide their own citation? /sarcasm

    23. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Or maybe its because they are trained to shoot center mass. You know the area with most of our important organs.

    24. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> unless you specifically close any loophole that might allow for the department to pay insurance costs, you can be sure the cost of insurance will fall right back on the tax payers leaving nothing changed.

      It may however provide a line item list of the departments insurance costs, thus the police chief would be able to make a decssion based on costs as to which officers he should keep, and those he should fire. It would also allow the tax payers to compare those insurance costs to other police departments, and replace the police chief if needed.

    25. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      And this differs from what we have now in what way, exactly?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    26. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by operagost · · Score: 2

      Being a sexually-harrassed firefighter sounds like a lucrative career. I'd retire after collecting $9 million, too.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Holi · · Score: 1

      It should come out of the pension fund. One officer's misdeeds should punish the whole lot, it would finally give them the incentive to police themselves.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    28. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Jax+Omen · · Score: 1

      Cops escalate domestic disputes and get people hurt/killed.

      The solution to domestic violence is highly publicized safe houses with armed guards that victims will A) know about and B) be able to make it to, whether or not they have car access. And to fight stigmas associated with being abused ("she's damaged goods", etc).

      The solution is NOT cops coming to the house and escalating the incident.

    29. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would when they have to pay a higher premium to work in an area where police culture is correlated with higher insurance company payouts.

    30. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      That would make perfect sense if domestic abuse wasn't something where people are usually being restricted the ability to leave by their spouse or domestic partner. And that the person who did the abuse would realize he or she was wrong and wouldn't try to track down the individual and physically force or harass them to come back home with them by staking out these well known safe houses. Sometimes the person on the receiving end of domestic abuse often needs protection in order to escape the situation. And it is escape. I guess they could try to call Batman to rescue them.

    31. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also trained to shoot them in the back as they are running away and then plant evidence to try and make it look legit.

    32. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I agree, but there's a long way between being sacked for gross negligence, and being financially liable for everything you do.

    33. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Yes, because that's how people learn. Anyone claiming to never making a mistake is not someone I would ever trust.

    34. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure there is zero incentive to be a police officer, you're hated by virtually everyone, your pay is shit and you work shit hours.

      It's a wonder America has any police at all...

      Where else can you be a person with a high-school education and get to kill poor people without consequence?

      Join the fucking army, but of course i forgot that on slashdot police are evil and the military are perfect heroes.

    35. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Surely that is covered by the employers' insurance?

      If I accidentally kill someone at work, I certainly don't expect to be sued personally, unless I deliberately murder them or something.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately it also wouldn't hurt the cops responsible - it would hurt the insurance companies. Considering the severity ..."

      The end result is that certain cops would find themselves uninsurable and therefore unemployable.

    37. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I would get someone to join just so we all could harass her and then split the money!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    38. Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm arguing for "only" sacking them. Unless they actually commited crimes, in which case any other employee would be financially liable too.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  12. Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People decry huge settlements and suggest that the victim doesn't "deserve" it.

    It's not about deserve. It's about preventing something from happening again. If $20k was in the "best interest of the city", then it wasn't enough.

    The cops who did this were fired. Good enough. Their supervisors were suspended...not quite good enough. The Police Chief and his staff, who are ultimately responsible for hiring these people need to be punished. The people who hired the Police Chief need to suffer some consequences to. and the only way you can do that is to piss off the voters. And how do you piss off voters? Take money out of their pockets.

    The settlements should be high enough so that everyone's property tax goes up a significant amount for a few years. And on the statements, the reasons should be laid out directly....$150 surcharge to pay for settlement against the city for Police Misconduct.

    Only then will you have politicians lose their jobs and the remaining ones decide that it's in the best interest of their careers to hire a chief, who will hire staff, who will correctly train the officers. This goes for all other parts of the government too, not just for police.

    Punitive damages is to punish. And the way you punish government or large companies is to take money out of of their pockets.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The officer was not fired. He quit. Big difference.

    2. Re: Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't that punitive damages are high, the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it. There are lots of ways to financially punish without awarding obscene amounts of money to the one filing the suit. The latter behavior is what causes the trolling behavior.

      If instead, that money went to pay legal expenses and reasonably compensated the person, and then the vast majority of the remainder went to some other cause, this would be a non-issue. Preferably something still tax payer funded, like transportation or education, so it isn't taxpayers getting screwed in the end.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      This is why our system of punitive damages sucks. It encourages people to game the system in hopes of winning the lawsuit lottery.

      He should receive restitution for the damages done. Nothing more. A huge payout to punish the guilty party is not justice.

      If large punitive damages are warranted, they shouldn't go to the plaintiff.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re: Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it.

      No, that is NOT a problem. That is a benefit of the current system. It incentivizes people to fight back against police abuse. Shifting the benefit away from the VICTIM (which you call the "plaintiff") just means the police will have impunity to do what they want, because no one will have the resources to push back.

      Also $20k is not "high". It is way too low. The penalties need to be high enough to sting, not just the police, but also the voters/taxpayers that tolerate their behavior.

    5. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The settlements should be high enough so that everyone's property tax goes up a significant amount for a few years. And on the statements, the reasons should be laid out directly....$150 surcharge to pay for settlement against the city for Police Misconduct.

      Only then will you have politicians lose their jobs and the remaining ones decide that it's in the best interest of their careers to hire a chief, who will hire staff, who will correctly train the officers.

      The obvious problem: If you're a voter and you see you're paying thousands of dollars a year for multiple settlements, do you vote for a different police chief and hope things get better, or do you vote for a legislature that will simply repeal the law responsible for those surcharges?

    6. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by sycodon · · Score: 1

      As long as he's gone. Although I guess quitting will allow him to get another job and do this all over again.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Guess that's your choice as a taxpayer. But at least you'd be fully informed and know why you taxes are up.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Who decides who gets the money?

      Who decides on the people that decide?

      I think you would be opening a huge can or worms that would result in the money going to people/causes not many people would like. Good chance it ends up going right back to the government via some creative agency naming..."Homeless Mother Aid" or something.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This is why our system of punitive damages sucks. It encourages people to game the system in hopes of winning the lawsuit lottery.

      Because people want to be have their rights abused, have their faces beaten in, or even killed on the slim chance they can force a settlement from a city's insurance company?

      That's the dumbest fucking thing I've seen in quite some time, and this is the Internet.

    10. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the timing, it seems very much like a "fall on your own sword" type of dismissal.

      He could wait to be fired, and then be guaranteed to never work in law enforcement again, or he can quit before he's ousted and work the security guard circit and perhaps even rejoin the ranks of the police in a smaller town, a year or two out.

      Any person who feared a dismissal for cause following them in their future employment would be sorely tempted to take the "we could fire you or you could quit" option of quitting.

    11. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Judges, most likely.

      You've already opened a huge can of worms by giving the money to one undeserving party. Just because there might be problems to resolve with a better system doesn't mean that there's no point in instituting the better system. Say that they get it wrong half the time. That's still better than today, when they get it wrong every single time.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    12. Re: Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Shifting the burden onto the taxpayers only pushes the majority of them further into the hole as the potholes continue to go unfixed and their beater car gets the shit beat out of it. After all, there's not much budget left for the massive amount of roadwork...

      You're welcome for the car.

    13. Re: Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Scutter · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is that the taxpayers get fed up and stop voting for the people who are costing them so much money. The Chief of Police is an appointed position (usually by the town council or the mayor), while the Sheriff is elected. Taxpayers have the power to fix the problem, but voter apathy will prevent it from every happening.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    14. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although I guess quitting will allow him to get another job and do this all over again.

      Not necessarily. Georgia is relatively good about decertifying cops who are fired or resign in lieu of being fired.

    15. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by psnyder · · Score: 2

      sorely tempted to take the "we could fire you or you could quit" option of quitting.

      So he was coerced by the department... kinda ironic.

    16. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please consider the practicality of your solutions before sharing them...

    17. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Only restitution?

      First, what's proper restitution for being compelled to post something on a Facebook post? I don't think I'd accept $20K to allow somebody else to put something I disliked on my Facebook account, myself.

      Second, the guy had to spend money and time to get the suit going, and had no certainty of getting anything. Offering restitution only (and then only when winning) means that it's most likely the best move to just let the police do whatever to you without recourse. This isn't what we want to happen.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Only restitution?

      First, what's proper restitution for being compelled to post something on a Facebook post? I don't think I'd accept $20K to allow somebody else to put something I disliked on my Facebook account, myself.

      A formal apology. If you can show that you suffered any real damages from the false facebook post, including your time or reputation, then you would be entitled to just compensation for those.

      Second, the guy had to spend money and time to get the suit going, and had no certainty of getting anything. Offering restitution only (and then only when winning) means that it's most likely the best move to just let the police do whatever to you without recourse.

      Your legal costs should of course be included in that restitution.

      The legal system should not exist to enrich someone out of proportion to how they were harmed. If people won't pursue justice if they don't have the chance of hitting a big jackpot, then it's probably not very important to them after all.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    19. Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Justice can be bloody expensive to try for. What you're proposing is that, if somebody has his or her rights violated by the police, they be compensated for provable damages and legal costs if they win. What if the case is the least bit shaky? What if the case involves things beyond strict monetary costs, such as time and energy? The chance of hitting some sort of jackpot is often the only thing that makes filing suit worthwhile, and without victims filing suit where's the incentive for the behavior to stop?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. Does he also have to move? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Does he also have to move so that somebody doesn't find him shot dead under mysterious circumstances?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  14. "nearly every constitutional right you can name" by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    nearly every constitutional right you can name

    I haven't seen any indication of them violating his second or third amendment rights.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  15. Re:"nearly every constitutional right you can name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading comprehension fail.

  16. Re:"nearly every constitutional right you can name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Key word: "nearly".

  17. Oh, that's simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just convict them as felons. That seems to destroy the job prospects of most of their victims.

  18. Re: "nearly every constitutional right you can nam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't name them...

  19. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    pent up frustration from a system that discriminates under the guise of fighting discrimination.

  20. Re:"nearly every constitutional right you can name by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    Maybe in a couple of weeks your first grade teacher will tell you about the word "nearly" and how it isn't just a random jumble of letters with no meaning that we just throw randomly into sentences for fun.

  21. Whining about lawyers = dumbfuckery by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem isn't that punitive damages are high, the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it.

    Whining that some money might end up in the hands of lawyers, and out of the hands of abusers (or those who insure abusers), is simply dumbfuckery. Always has been, always will be.

  22. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I actually read the post, and this really doesn't read like a troll, but an actual point, albeit stated in the crudest possible language. (The whole TL;DR of which is that crude language is still free speech.)

    You're welcome for the translation.

  23. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh stewardess, I speak racist. He said:
    Such a group of people I despise. The powers that be want the people to view any incident not in terms of the individual, but rather that person's group, as it is easier to control by group or type rather than many separate and rational individuals.

  24. Again no consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again crooked cops get away, well almost, scott-free. One of them resigned, tough break. The other got a five day suspension, probably with pay. And $20,000 is petty cash for a city like Atlanta.

  25. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Translation: Another loser blaming everyone else for his inadequacies.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  26. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 1

    Look, I know you're a bit special, but piss off.

  27. i smell a new facebook policy ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... coming ... that prohibits coerced posts.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  28. I love Baton Bob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He was one of the fixtures of Saint Louis after 9/11. Just seeing him marching down the street always brought a smile to my face.

  29. 20k could make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the officers in question ended up paying it personally.

    For the city, it seems a wink and wrist slap.
    The lesson to the city is to encourage such behavior.

  30. Shame by Archtech · · Score: 2

    He should have held out for $2 million. Are constitutional rights so cheap nowadays that police can cheerfully violate them by the gross, and pay nothing more in compensation than the price of a second-hand car?

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  31. What the fuck, America. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Both the incident itself and how it was subsequently 'dealt with' are of the kind of shit we only expect from actual police state wannabes like China, Russia and any number of fictitious dystopian states.

    On behalf of the civilized world: get your fucking shit together.

  32. but police are greeeeeeat by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I love how everyone is saying how "most" police officers are good and do their jobs properly and blah blah blah. Most police officers are clueless about the laws because they have practically no legal training. They can do whatever they want because they have all the power and it takes a 6 month legal nightmare with lawyers and courts and a 3 ring media circus to do anything about that.

    All officers remotely involved should have been fired and charged with criminal charges for starters. Whoever approved the hiring of these officers in the first place should be fired because obviously they're an idiot too. Anyone who saw what was happening and didn't speak up to stop them should be fired because that's completely failing to do their job. Whoever made the investigation last 6 months instead of 6 hours should be fired because that's ridiculous.

    Unfortunately none of that will happen, they'll keep hiring idiots and promoting idiots to ranks they don't deserve, and group violations of citizens' rights will still happen at that police department.

  33. Dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything about this indicates that HE was the dumbass.

    1. REMAIN SILENT.
    2. Do NOT settle.

  34. All rights were NOT created equally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nearly every constitutional right you can name" I'm sorry, but if you take the population of people who CARE about constitutional rights, I'll be generous and say 50% of them won't give a shit about this because they didn't infringe on his right to bear arms.

    Not saying it's right, but let's call a spade a spade.

    This us Murica. Act Murican.

  35. Oh look, another SJW circle jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting aside the fact this isn't newsworthy of a tech site for "nerds," the amount of jaded remarks and cries for violence towards the police is just disgusting. If you guys want anarchy so badly, move to another country.

  36. Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I actually read the post, and this really doesn't read like a troll, but an actual point, albeit stated in the crudest possible language. (The whole TL;DR of which is that crude language is still free speech.)

    You're welcome for the translation.

    The real point is that he is free to use crude racist language, and the police don't come knocking on his door.

    Being down-modded on an internet forum (which he inevitably will be since his rant is both off-topic and inflammatory) is not censorship. If you want to go somewhere with no moderation, there are plenty of alternatives. Some of us just get tired of too much stupidity.

    The right to free speech is not a right to force people to read what you say.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  37. Re:"nearly every constitutional right you can name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I nearly understood that.

    (attempt at humor)