4 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoOK. 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 agoPerjuring 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 agothe 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.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoYou're double-counting - if the restitution is fair, then the unlawful arrest isn't a net victimization. Restitution just means a transfer of unfairness from taxpayers to those their police department victimizes.
- boomlinde 9y agoSo if I beat you to a pulp and then pay your expenses and cover your losses, would you consider that a zero sum in terms of victimization? What sum of money would be necessary to get you un-assaulted and un-beaten up? Restitution, legally, covers monetary losses. It should not be taken to mean that all is well when the bills are paid. You can't pay away a black eye.
- sitkack 9y agoIt should come from the insurance the police are they themselves required to purchase. Uninsurable, get a different job.
- tnzn 9y agoI disagree with the last sentence. Should being in the police be the privilege of the not-so-poor ? This is what it was like in the middle ages.