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.

17 of 201 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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....

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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!