5 ms·

The difference is that here you are able to sue the police officer rather than the police department, as you usually would. The theory is that this will discour

The difference is that here you are able to sue the police officer rather than the police department, as you usually would. The theory is that this will discourage officers from acting in a certain way, since they would be personally liable. However, one could also argue that this is bad for victims, since the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's. However, if this law were to pass, a smart attorney would probably file a suit against both the municipality and the officer.

damoncali 15y ago
One could also argue that it's bad for victims of other crimes. If police are personally liable for everything, then I suspect the won't be particularly motivated to do anything. These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Oh please, the sky isn't falling. Rape is not going to go uninvestigated because a police officer can't tell someone to stop filming.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    Hopefully what it will mean is officers will have an incentive to actually learn the laws instead of guessing. This creates a disincentive to action without knowledge, and cops aren't going to want to do nothing.
  - damoncali 15y ago
    That's not what I mean. Boil this down to it's logical conclusion. If a cop arrests anyone for something that is deemed after the fact unjustifiable, they should similarly be held liable for damages. I mean, why stop at taking pictures? Is it not just as much an inconvenience to be arbitrarily arrested for burglary? Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace. I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Don't change the subject, it's exactly what you mean. This law doesn't cover "anyone" for "something," it's covers photography, period.
      - damoncali 15y ago
        You're missing the bigger point. Look at the message sent. It's bigger than some hippie taking pictures at an occupy berkeley event.
        rhizome 15y ago
        No, I'm not. I simply don't agree that there is a "bigger point" at all, nor that this is a slippery-slope that must be guarded.
- drcube 15y ago
  You mean law enforcement officers might be required to actually learn what the law says and follow it, or else be held accountable?? I can't imagine how terrible that must be.
kijin 15y ago
> the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's That's why the law allows officers to be reimbursed by the department if they lose a lawsuit, provided that they were following appropriate guidelines. I think that's a very nice compromise, targeting both the officer and the municipality.

damoncali 15y ago

One could also argue that it's bad for victims of other crimes. If police are personally liable for everything, then I suspect the won't be particularly motivated to do anything. These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.

rhizome 15y ago
Oh please, the sky isn't falling. Rape is not going to go uninvestigated because a police officer can't tell someone to stop filming.
- freehunter 15y ago
  Hopefully what it will mean is officers will have an incentive to actually learn the laws instead of guessing. This creates a disincentive to action without knowledge, and cops aren't going to want to do nothing.
- damoncali 15y ago
  That's not what I mean. Boil this down to it's logical conclusion. If a cop arrests anyone for something that is deemed after the fact unjustifiable, they should similarly be held liable for damages. I mean, why stop at taking pictures? Is it not just as much an inconvenience to be arbitrarily arrested for burglary? Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace. I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Don't change the subject, it's exactly what you mean. This law doesn't cover "anyone" for "something," it's covers photography, period.
    - damoncali 15y ago
      You're missing the bigger point. Look at the message sent. It's bigger than some hippie taking pictures at an occupy berkeley event.
      - rhizome 15y ago
        No, I'm not. I simply don't agree that there is a "bigger point" at all, nor that this is a slippery-slope that must be guarded.
drcube 15y ago
You mean law enforcement officers might be required to actually learn what the law says and follow it, or else be held accountable?? I can't imagine how terrible that must be.

kijin 15y ago

> the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's That's why the law allows officers to be reimbursed by the department if they lose a lawsuit, provided that they were following appropriate guidelines. I think that's a very nice compromise, targeting both the officer and the municipality.