4 ms·

Can someone explain to me why the county was liable here? When the crime was reported, an investigation was started promptly; the accused officer was suspended

Can someone explain to me why the county was liable here? When the crime was reported, an investigation was started promptly; the accused officer was suspended; and upon the conclusion of that investigation he was charged, arrested, and is now in jail. It seems like the process worked exactly as it should here. Was such criminal behaviour condoned (tacitly or otherwise) by the department? I've heard stories about this happening in the past, but there's no mention of anything like that in this article. Was the department aware of prior complaints? It doesn't seem like it; while the article implies that this was not the first assault committed by this officer, the DA's investigation clearly wasn't able to uncover evidence of any prior complaints, and for all that police officers have a reputation for standing together I doubt they would bury complaints against a known rapist that effectively. A crime was committed, and the criminal went to jail. How does the criminal's employer come into the picture?

gizmo686 11y ago
I am not a lawyer. This was not simply a cop who committed a crime. He committed the crime while in uniform, and used his authority as a police officer to do it.
- cperciva 11y ago
  Sure, but him abusing his position on the police force doesn't make the police force culpable. If anything, it makes the police force a victim. What did the police force do wrong?
  - jrock08 11y ago
    If you can't hold a company liable for the behavior of their employees, the company, in lieu of liability, could easily decide that it's too expensive to do things like background checks or training.
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    The legal concept here seems to be Respondeat Superior, which "holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency." [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Police departments should be held strictly liable (or practically so) for conduct of officers under the color of authority. It's no different than holding a club responsible for a bouncer using excessive force. When your organization's basic business involves putting your employees in sensitive sorts of contact with the public, you're creating risk and misconduct is foreseeable. Civil liability, unlike criminal liability, isn't about punishing those who did something wrong. Its about compensating wronged persons in a way that efficiently allocates incentives. Employers are usually the ones that can most efficiently exercise precaution to avoid abuse of authority by employees.
  - proksoup 11y ago
    The police force has a tendency and history and many examples of putting their fellow officers in higher priority than their oath. Frequently, without knowing what the crime is. Not wanting to be a rat. "If a cop said that what's happened, you back him up". I don't know if that was the case here --- but it (protecting fellow officers from litigation, under the assumption that the officer wouldn't have done anything wrong, so we have to protect each other from those evil lawyers/citizens/etc) --- that happens so often, without knowing the crime ---- that happens so often that I personally find it plausible it happened here. Very good chance it did not. But still ... glad to see an investigation. ---- I find it unlikely anyone would intentionally protect a rapist. But intent doesn't matter. I find it likely the police force would unintentionally protect all sorts of crimes.
  - iradik 11y ago
    I think the fallacy in your argument is that you are separating this cop from the "police" when they are both one and the same. What is the "police force"? Isn't it just a group of individuals chartered for a specific set of activities and behaviors? If one individual in a group does wrong within the charter (i.e. uphold the law, serve and protect), cat you also say that the group as a whole has done wrong? I think the concept applies to lots of things. Tire center puts on wrong tires on your car and you get in an accident, they are liable. McDonalds undercooks your burger and your kid dies, they are liable. Police pull you over, and then you die, get injured, beaten, raped without just cause etc, they are liable.
  - goodcanadian 11y ago
    The police force is not a monolithic entity; it is a collection of individual people. The actions of individual members are the actions of the force. Every officer, at least while on duty, represents the police force and acts on its behalf. Effectively, the police force raped her through the actions of one of its officers. That is why the force is liable. Further the force (it's other members and superiors) had a duty to make certain someone like that was not on the force, and in failing to do that, they are liable.
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
They provided an environment in which the sheriff felt more than confident that this could take place with impunity. And he was right. They spent five years and close to half a million dollars to make sure he saw no repercussions. They put him on paid leave two days after he attempted to rape another woman. A subsequent internal investigation that year turned up evidence of more women possibly being preyed upon and yet he was on paid leave for three more years afterwards. There is no reason to push off an investigation for 9mo other than hoping the victim would run out of funds and steam and drop the case. A woman was raped and justice wasn't sought because the offender was one of their own. The department's conduct in this case is frankly disgusting. The county knew the power they had versus the limited ability of the victim to bring the offender to justice. They abused it at every turn to keep a rapist on their payroll and out of jail because he had a badge. For five years.
- cperciva 11y ago
  They spent five years and close to half a million dollars to make sure he saw no repercussions. No, they spent half a million dollars to make sure that they saw no repercussions. He was in jail long before the lawsuit was settled.
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    Part of making sure they saw no repercussions was covering his ass for as long as they could. He knew he could hide behind their common interest.
- Volundr 11y ago
  I just want to point out, he while he was put on paid leave immediately afterwards, the article specifically states he was on unpaid leave when he was arrested. While we don't know how long afterward he received a paycheck for we do at least know he didn't get a 3 year paid vacation.
wcarey 11y ago
The employer is probably liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, whose considerations are: - Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency? - Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform? - Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act? It seems like the balance of those in this case would make the employer liable, as the employee's actions were committed using the property of his employer and while engaged in his employment activities. Also, his actions were of the same general nature (detaining someone) as the responsibilities he is authorized to perform.

gizmo686 11y ago

I am not a lawyer. This was not simply a cop who committed a crime. He committed the crime while in uniform, and used his authority as a police officer to do it.

cperciva 11y ago
Sure, but him abusing his position on the police force doesn't make the police force culpable. If anything, it makes the police force a victim. What did the police force do wrong?
- jrock08 11y ago
  If you can't hold a company liable for the behavior of their employees, the company, in lieu of liability, could easily decide that it's too expensive to do things like background checks or training.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  The legal concept here seems to be Respondeat Superior, which "holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency." [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior
- rayiner 11y ago
  Police departments should be held strictly liable (or practically so) for conduct of officers under the color of authority. It's no different than holding a club responsible for a bouncer using excessive force. When your organization's basic business involves putting your employees in sensitive sorts of contact with the public, you're creating risk and misconduct is foreseeable. Civil liability, unlike criminal liability, isn't about punishing those who did something wrong. Its about compensating wronged persons in a way that efficiently allocates incentives. Employers are usually the ones that can most efficiently exercise precaution to avoid abuse of authority by employees.
- proksoup 11y ago
  The police force has a tendency and history and many examples of putting their fellow officers in higher priority than their oath. Frequently, without knowing what the crime is. Not wanting to be a rat. "If a cop said that what's happened, you back him up". I don't know if that was the case here --- but it (protecting fellow officers from litigation, under the assumption that the officer wouldn't have done anything wrong, so we have to protect each other from those evil lawyers/citizens/etc) --- that happens so often, without knowing the crime ---- that happens so often that I personally find it plausible it happened here. Very good chance it did not. But still ... glad to see an investigation. ---- I find it unlikely anyone would intentionally protect a rapist. But intent doesn't matter. I find it likely the police force would unintentionally protect all sorts of crimes.
- iradik 11y ago
  I think the fallacy in your argument is that you are separating this cop from the "police" when they are both one and the same. What is the "police force"? Isn't it just a group of individuals chartered for a specific set of activities and behaviors? If one individual in a group does wrong within the charter (i.e. uphold the law, serve and protect), cat you also say that the group as a whole has done wrong? I think the concept applies to lots of things. Tire center puts on wrong tires on your car and you get in an accident, they are liable. McDonalds undercooks your burger and your kid dies, they are liable. Police pull you over, and then you die, get injured, beaten, raped without just cause etc, they are liable.
- goodcanadian 11y ago
  The police force is not a monolithic entity; it is a collection of individual people. The actions of individual members are the actions of the force. Every officer, at least while on duty, represents the police force and acts on its behalf. Effectively, the police force raped her through the actions of one of its officers. That is why the force is liable. Further the force (it's other members and superiors) had a duty to make certain someone like that was not on the force, and in failing to do that, they are liable.

fucking_tragedy 11y ago

They provided an environment in which the sheriff felt more than confident that this could take place with impunity. And he was right. They spent five years and close to half a million dollars to make sure he saw no repercussions. They put him on paid leave two days after he attempted to rape another woman. A subsequent internal investigation that year turned up evidence of more women possibly being preyed upon and yet he was on paid leave for three more years afterwards. There is no reason to push off an investigation for 9mo other than hoping the victim would run out of funds and steam and drop the case. A woman was raped and justice wasn't sought because the offender was one of their own. The department's conduct in this case is frankly disgusting. The county knew the power they had versus the limited ability of the victim to bring the offender to justice. They abused it at every turn to keep a rapist on their payroll and out of jail because he had a badge. For five years.

cperciva 11y ago
They spent five years and close to half a million dollars to make sure he saw no repercussions. No, they spent half a million dollars to make sure that they saw no repercussions. He was in jail long before the lawsuit was settled.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Part of making sure they saw no repercussions was covering his ass for as long as they could. He knew he could hide behind their common interest.
Volundr 11y ago
I just want to point out, he while he was put on paid leave immediately afterwards, the article specifically states he was on unpaid leave when he was arrested. While we don't know how long afterward he received a paycheck for we do at least know he didn't get a 3 year paid vacation.

wcarey 11y ago

The employer is probably liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, whose considerations are: - Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency? - Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform? - Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act? It seems like the balance of those in this case would make the employer liable, as the employee's actions were committed using the property of his employer and while engaged in his employment activities. Also, his actions were of the same general nature (detaining someone) as the responsibilities he is authorized to perform.