8 ms·

Immediately reminded me of this from 2014: http://www.startribune.com/man-arrested-in-st-paul-skyway-sues-3-police-officers-city/282658401/ http://www.startrib

by jccc 9y ago

Immediately reminded me of this from 2014: http://www.startribune.com/man-arrested-in-st-paul-skyway-sues-3-police-officers-city/282658401/ http://www.startribune.com/man-arrested-in-st-paul-skyway-su... A father waiting to pick up his kids from day care sits in an ambiguously public-ish place. He refuses when an employee asks him to leave. Then the police arrive. At that point he voluntarily gets up and starts walking away, but the cop follows him and continues pestering him to identify himself, etc. It doesn't end well. I'm sure you can guess what he looks like.

veidr 9y ago
> It doesn't end well It's an unpleasant story, but the ending seems OK. Cops play the role of corporate lackey (like they do everywhere, in the USA and everywhere else), treat citizen badly, with probable significant racist component, and end up shooting him with a taser and arresting him. All bad so far. But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00. That's pretty much how that story should end.
- avs733 9y ago
  >But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00. Not really. The police decided to act like corporate lackeys and TAX PAYERS paid a $40,000 settlement to a person who was physically injured by their misconduct. There are several ways this story should end that are not that 1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money 2) the cops, or at least the property owner, should pay the settlement 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions 4) there should be consequences for the police brutally attacking someone who asserts their (legal in MN) right not to identify themselves to police officers
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    If you try to make the police financially responsible they will price that into their decision to do that job; there's no way to really separate the public purse.
    - bradleyjg 9y ago
      First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages in applications. Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time. Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up. I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it. Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.
        bradleyjg 9y ago
        Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there. Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.
        maxerickson 9y ago
  - Kurtz79 9y ago
    "1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money" What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? The one affected by brutality would be doubly screwed. The Police as a whole should be held accountable, and victims should be ensured compensation, they are by all accounts being brutalized by the state, and the state is run with taxpayers money. Agreeing with the rest though.
    - heartbreak 9y ago
      > What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? Malpractice insurance?
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      Basically the most reasonable strategy is that the employer which is the public is on the hook for the immediate cost and has the privilege and duty of recovering the money from the guilty. This insures that the city who is guilty of hiring the miscreant ends up with the onerous duty of collection and the victim is compensated hastily.
    - izacus 9y ago
      > What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? What happens to normal mortals when they can't pay their debts. Are policemen really so much above the law that they don't have to pay their debts either?
      - Kurtz79 9y ago
        The problem is not with the policeman, it would be with the victim that would be unable to receive compensation, if the former defaults.
        Cerium 9y ago
        As someone else said, the police should be required to hold malpractice insurance.
  - arthur_pryor 9y ago
    > 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions yes. that. that seems so obvious, but it also never seems to be the way things actually play out.
  - 4bpp 9y ago
    Eh, but on the other hand, the tax payers are the ones who keep voting in governments that do not hold members of the police force accountable (and who hired policemen that do this to begin with). Such is the beauty of democracy: as long as there is no deception involved (and it doesn't seem like in this case, there was), the voters get exactly the government they deserve.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  Not really. The $100,000 comes out of general funds. So the citizenry is victimized twice -- once by having public servants that don't serve them and again by having to pay for their misdeeds. Officers Lori Hayne, Michael Johnson and Bruce Schmidt, who not only used excessive force but also perjured themselves in their official reports, paid not one penny of that settlement, faced no criminal charges, and didn't even have any adverse employment consequences. So long as we refuse to hold police officers responsible for their actions they will continue to act as though they are above the law. Because they are.
  - veidr 9y ago
    OK. I mostly agree. But in a legitimate democracy, the citizenry cannot be "victimized" by "public servants that don't serve them". If you hire some servants, and those servants don't serve you, and you don't get some new servants... whose fault is that? But you're right on the essential point: the democratically elected government (== citizenry) involved here is paying an arguably reasonable price, but the individuals responsible probably are not.
    - Zigurd 9y ago
      Perjuring themselves can't be interpreted as a legitimate job function. Just as the city would sue an accountant to recover embezzlement, the individuals responsible for this liability should have reimbursed the municipality.
    - arthur_pryor 9y ago
      the specific people who are most hurt by bad law enforcement also tend to have the least power to "get some new servants." so who's fault is that? usually not the victim. or at least the most direct victim, since obviously, society as a whole is hurt by this sort of thing (just not as much as the person who's wrongly harassed/injured/killed by the cops). but maybe your point stands, because is that really a "legitimate democracy"?
    - boomlinde 9y ago
      "Legitimate democracy" is a long lost true scotsman if you take it to mean a perfectly functioning democracy. Constantly being under threat of violence and arbitrary harassment from an armed force legitimized by the government undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. When you get beaten up for protesting, harassed for speaking your mind or fitting some fundamentally class-based stereotype, you can't exercise the command and influence you would be entitled to in a legitimate democracy.
- jccc 9y ago
  Taxpayers cover the bill, police (and the corporate tenant) vindicated, they all move on and everything else pretty much stays the same? Maybe a better ending would move the needle at least slightly in favor of preventing this kind of thing in the future. Among several things that ought to happen in an ideal world, perhaps we could give non-lawyers clarity on what is a public or private space: If a corporate tenant wants to regulate a private space this way, it has to clearly separate it from the public with some specification of doors, gates, etc. Otherwise, it will be considered public in a conflict like this one.
- jerrylives 9y ago
  Lol yea I forgot that just paying out money solves all injustice and policing issues
stillhere 9y ago
>I'm sure you can guess what he looks like. Homeless?
- petre 9y ago
  Most probably black.
- jccc 9y ago
  His photo is provided with the story. Is that what you see? http://stmedia.stimg.co/08_473691_TASED082914_30709587.JPG?w=263 http://stmedia.stimg.co/08_473691_TASED082914_30709587.JPG?w...
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    "I'm sure you can guess what he looks like." 'Guess' means not looking at the photo.
    - jccc 9y ago
      My reply did not assume that he saw the image before his comment.
- urethrafranklin 9y ago
  What about that man's picture says "homeless" to you, please?
randyrand 9y ago
> I'm sure you can guess what he looks like. Until you said that I was picturing a white person. Maybe there is a natural tendency for people to picture themselves in the shoes of the story. There is definitely a stereotype that police pick on African-americans more. But they also pick on a lot of all of people in general and there are way more white people in the USA, so I don't immediately assume that a person being picked on by police is black. There is also the stereotype that blacks are not attentive fathers, so the setting (picking a kid up at daycare), would have at least canceled out the police stereotype IMO. I'd be surprised if most people had the same assumption about skin color that you had. Either way, I think calling attention to his skin color in the way you did is petty and rude.
- gambiting 9y ago
  As a Polish person, it has absolutely not even crossed my mind that the person in the story would be black. HN is read all over the world and not everyone understands the same assumptions.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  On a related note, is there any good date on how sex plays into this instead of (or in combination with) race? I wonder if a white male or a minority female faces greater police harassment. I'm also guessing age and appearance of wealth play significant factors as well.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  The stereotype that police pick on black people more than white people stems from reality (not just in America); the stereotype that black men are not attentive fathers stems from racism. It's important to understand the difference. But, why do you think it's rude? https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/the-dangerous-myth-of-the-missing-black-father/?utm_term=.bfc25b20f1be https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/?utm_term=.18064a293096 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/polic... http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-race-injury-20160725-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-rac... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-people-stop-and-search-six-times-police-racist-a7383591.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-people-...

by jccc 9y ago

veidr 9y ago

> It doesn't end well It's an unpleasant story, but the ending seems OK. Cops play the role of corporate lackey (like they do everywhere, in the USA and everywhere else), treat citizen badly, with probable significant racist component, and end up shooting him with a taser and arresting him. All bad so far. But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00. That's pretty much how that story should end.

avs733 9y ago
>But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00. Not really. The police decided to act like corporate lackeys and TAX PAYERS paid a $40,000 settlement to a person who was physically injured by their misconduct. There are several ways this story should end that are not that 1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money 2) the cops, or at least the property owner, should pay the settlement 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions 4) there should be consequences for the police brutally attacking someone who asserts their (legal in MN) right not to identify themselves to police officers
- maxerickson 9y ago
  If you try to make the police financially responsible they will price that into their decision to do that job; there's no way to really separate the public purse.
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages in applications. Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time. Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up. I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it. Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.
      - bradleyjg 9y ago
        Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there. Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.
        maxerickson 9y ago
- Kurtz79 9y ago
  "1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money" What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? The one affected by brutality would be doubly screwed. The Police as a whole should be held accountable, and victims should be ensured compensation, they are by all accounts being brutalized by the state, and the state is run with taxpayers money. Agreeing with the rest though.
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    > What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? Malpractice insurance?
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    Basically the most reasonable strategy is that the employer which is the public is on the hook for the immediate cost and has the privilege and duty of recovering the money from the guilty. This insures that the city who is guilty of hiring the miscreant ends up with the onerous duty of collection and the victim is compensated hastily.
  - izacus 9y ago
    > What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? What happens to normal mortals when they can't pay their debts. Are policemen really so much above the law that they don't have to pay their debts either?
    - Kurtz79 9y ago
      The problem is not with the policeman, it would be with the victim that would be unable to receive compensation, if the former defaults.
      - Cerium 9y ago
        As someone else said, the police should be required to hold malpractice insurance.
- arthur_pryor 9y ago
  > 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions yes. that. that seems so obvious, but it also never seems to be the way things actually play out.
- 4bpp 9y ago
  Eh, but on the other hand, the tax payers are the ones who keep voting in governments that do not hold members of the police force accountable (and who hired policemen that do this to begin with). Such is the beauty of democracy: as long as there is no deception involved (and it doesn't seem like in this case, there was), the voters get exactly the government they deserve.
bradleyjg 9y ago
Not really. The $100,000 comes out of general funds. So the citizenry is victimized twice -- once by having public servants that don't serve them and again by having to pay for their misdeeds. Officers Lori Hayne, Michael Johnson and Bruce Schmidt, who not only used excessive force but also perjured themselves in their official reports, paid not one penny of that settlement, faced no criminal charges, and didn't even have any adverse employment consequences. So long as we refuse to hold police officers responsible for their actions they will continue to act as though they are above the law. Because they are.
- veidr 9y ago
  OK. I mostly agree. But in a legitimate democracy, the citizenry cannot be "victimized" by "public servants that don't serve them". If you hire some servants, and those servants don't serve you, and you don't get some new servants... whose fault is that? But you're right on the essential point: the democratically elected government (== citizenry) involved here is paying an arguably reasonable price, but the individuals responsible probably are not.
  - Zigurd 9y ago
    Perjuring themselves can't be interpreted as a legitimate job function. Just as the city would sue an accountant to recover embezzlement, the individuals responsible for this liability should have reimbursed the municipality.
  - arthur_pryor 9y ago
    the specific people who are most hurt by bad law enforcement also tend to have the least power to "get some new servants." so who's fault is that? usually not the victim. or at least the most direct victim, since obviously, society as a whole is hurt by this sort of thing (just not as much as the person who's wrongly harassed/injured/killed by the cops). but maybe your point stands, because is that really a "legitimate democracy"?
  - boomlinde 9y ago
    "Legitimate democracy" is a long lost true scotsman if you take it to mean a perfectly functioning democracy. Constantly being under threat of violence and arbitrary harassment from an armed force legitimized by the government undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. When you get beaten up for protesting, harassed for speaking your mind or fitting some fundamentally class-based stereotype, you can't exercise the command and influence you would be entitled to in a legitimate democracy.
jccc 9y ago
Taxpayers cover the bill, police (and the corporate tenant) vindicated, they all move on and everything else pretty much stays the same? Maybe a better ending would move the needle at least slightly in favor of preventing this kind of thing in the future. Among several things that ought to happen in an ideal world, perhaps we could give non-lawyers clarity on what is a public or private space: If a corporate tenant wants to regulate a private space this way, it has to clearly separate it from the public with some specification of doors, gates, etc. Otherwise, it will be considered public in a conflict like this one.
jerrylives 9y ago
Lol yea I forgot that just paying out money solves all injustice and policing issues

stillhere 9y ago

>I'm sure you can guess what he looks like. Homeless?

petre 9y ago
Most probably black.
jccc 9y ago
His photo is provided with the story. Is that what you see? http://stmedia.stimg.co/08_473691_TASED082914_30709587.JPG?w=263 http://stmedia.stimg.co/08_473691_TASED082914_30709587.JPG?w...
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  "I'm sure you can guess what he looks like." 'Guess' means not looking at the photo.
  - jccc 9y ago
    My reply did not assume that he saw the image before his comment.
urethrafranklin 9y ago
What about that man's picture says "homeless" to you, please?

randyrand 9y ago

> I'm sure you can guess what he looks like. Until you said that I was picturing a white person. Maybe there is a natural tendency for people to picture themselves in the shoes of the story. There is definitely a stereotype that police pick on African-americans more. But they also pick on a lot of all of people in general and there are way more white people in the USA, so I don't immediately assume that a person being picked on by police is black. There is also the stereotype that blacks are not attentive fathers, so the setting (picking a kid up at daycare), would have at least canceled out the police stereotype IMO. I'd be surprised if most people had the same assumption about skin color that you had. Either way, I think calling attention to his skin color in the way you did is petty and rude.

gambiting 9y ago
As a Polish person, it has absolutely not even crossed my mind that the person in the story would be black. HN is read all over the world and not everyone understands the same assumptions.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
On a related note, is there any good date on how sex plays into this instead of (or in combination with) race? I wonder if a white male or a minority female faces greater police harassment. I'm also guessing age and appearance of wealth play significant factors as well.
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
The stereotype that police pick on black people more than white people stems from reality (not just in America); the stereotype that black men are not attentive fathers stems from racism. It's important to understand the difference. But, why do you think it's rude? https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/the-dangerous-myth-of-the-missing-black-father/?utm_term=.bfc25b20f1be https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/?utm_term=.18064a293096 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/polic... http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-race-injury-20160725-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-rac... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-people-stop-and-search-six-times-police-racist-a7383591.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-people-...