4 ms·

Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?

by throwa356262 7mo ago

caymanjim 7mo ago
Qualified immunity.
- iririririr 7mo ago
  which is double genius on afroman, because they forfeited qualified immunity to start this trial. now he can even sue further damages. distrack as legal maneuver.
  - giraffe_lady 7mo ago
    He is a seasoned professional at this. He was respected in the diss track game in his day, he definitely understands the boundaries of defamation. And what has long been known in rap in newspapers: even if you're right it's not worth it to be on the stand defending defamation. "It's average size your honor."
- jhancock 7mo ago
  I'm going to keep this one... underqualified immunity :)
Drakim 7mo ago
If the damaged party tries to sue the police for the damage they caused, the police can get the case instantly dismissed underqualified immunity.
- lightedman 7mo ago
  Stealing things out of a person's fridge and eating it is not covered under qualified immunity.
  - RIMR 7mo ago
    Making up details of the incident doesn't help either. They didn't eat anything, a cop just did a double-take at the lemon pound cake, and Afroman wrote a song about how they wanted to eat it.
  - cobbzilla 7mo ago
    um it probably is. Wasn’t there a case a few years ago where a dispensary was raided and the cops stole marijuana, and got away with it due to QI.
- dec0dedab0de 7mo ago
  Qualified immunity just protects the police, and other government officials personally. If there is grounds for a lawsuit then he could still sue the government that employs the police department. I think in general, if it is a legit warrant, it is very difficult to win a lawsuit for damage. Though with that video, and how high profile this has been, he might be able to win something. though IANAL, and I'm just going off my gut.
  - voxic11 7mo ago
    The government has sovereign immunity which is why you usually have to sue the people involved rather than the government directly.
    - ngetchell 7mo ago
      The government is sued all the time.
    - petcat 7mo ago
      Police departments are sued constantly. Most major police departments even have dedicated divisions set up just to assess and respond to lawsuits. Oftentimes by just knocking on the door and handing over a check.
    - dec0dedab0de 7mo ago
      I didn't know about sovereign immunity, but I just looked it up and there are exceptions to it. I think this one in particular could fall under a civil rights violation. People routinely get money from excessive force used by police officers, and I believe that does extend to property too. Qualified immunity means it is almost impossible to sue the officers directly, which is why so many people have a problem with it. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the actions of a bad police officer, the officer themself isn't held responsible for their actions. On the other hand, you don't want officers afraid to engage with a dangerous situation because they might bankrupt their family if they do the wrong thing in the heat of the moment. It is a sticky situation, and before smartphones and body cameras there was no real way to know if an officer crossed the line. As technology improves, I expect there to be more personal accountability, while also allowing the officers enough leeway to do their jobs without hesitation.
wl 7mo ago
They chose not to do so. And the courts are no help, because generally speaking, you can't sue the government unless there's a specific law allowing you to do so (sovereign immunity). The police as individuals are generally immune from civil suits unless they violated some clearly established right (qualified immunity).
- delfinom 7mo ago
  Eh? This falls under tort law for damages caused by the government.
  - wl 7mo ago
    The laws that provide a right of action against the government generally don’t cover damages caused by police in the lawful exercise of their duties. So yeah, sovereign immunity.
    - wnoise 7mo ago
      Even though you would think that'd be a taking for public use.
      - wl 7mo ago
        Perhaps it should be, but the courts have not agreed. See Pena v. Los Angeles for an example of an appellate case that rejected this argument. It found that a "police power" exception to the takings clause applies in such cases.
Refreeze5224 7mo ago
Serious answer: cops are not accountable for their behavior, in the vast majority of cases.
quickthrowman 7mo ago
They’re not liable to repair damage incurred from a raid or any other action. If the fire department has to chop your door open with an axe to gain entry to your home, they don’t pay for that either, you do. If the police execute a search warrant on your home and kill your pet or a person, guess who is responsible for cleaning up the blood and mess? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the police.
- malfist 7mo ago
  There's even a legal case where police took a backhoe to a building and tore one wall completely out instead of negotiating during a hostage situation. The homeowner was unable to get compensation for their destroyed home.
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    His mistake was stopping when the lawsuit failed. Anyone can rent a backhoe. People forget that there is also a court of public opinion you can appeal to.
    - malfist 7mo ago
      Are you suggesting a killdozer v2? I'm not sure what you're implying.
      - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
        Just tear the wall off a relevant party's house and then return it to the rental place.

Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?

caymanjim 7mo ago

Qualified immunity.

iririririr 7mo ago
which is double genius on afroman, because they forfeited qualified immunity to start this trial. now he can even sue further damages. distrack as legal maneuver.
- giraffe_lady 7mo ago
  He is a seasoned professional at this. He was respected in the diss track game in his day, he definitely understands the boundaries of defamation. And what has long been known in rap in newspapers: even if you're right it's not worth it to be on the stand defending defamation. "It's average size your honor."
jhancock 7mo ago
I'm going to keep this one... underqualified immunity :)

Drakim 7mo ago

If the damaged party tries to sue the police for the damage they caused, the police can get the case instantly dismissed underqualified immunity.

lightedman 7mo ago
Stealing things out of a person's fridge and eating it is not covered under qualified immunity.
- RIMR 7mo ago
  Making up details of the incident doesn't help either. They didn't eat anything, a cop just did a double-take at the lemon pound cake, and Afroman wrote a song about how they wanted to eat it.
- cobbzilla 7mo ago
  um it probably is. Wasn’t there a case a few years ago where a dispensary was raided and the cops stole marijuana, and got away with it due to QI.
dec0dedab0de 7mo ago
Qualified immunity just protects the police, and other government officials personally. If there is grounds for a lawsuit then he could still sue the government that employs the police department. I think in general, if it is a legit warrant, it is very difficult to win a lawsuit for damage. Though with that video, and how high profile this has been, he might be able to win something. though IANAL, and I'm just going off my gut.
- voxic11 7mo ago
  The government has sovereign immunity which is why you usually have to sue the people involved rather than the government directly.
  - ngetchell 7mo ago
    The government is sued all the time.
  - petcat 7mo ago
    Police departments are sued constantly. Most major police departments even have dedicated divisions set up just to assess and respond to lawsuits. Oftentimes by just knocking on the door and handing over a check.
  - dec0dedab0de 7mo ago
    I didn't know about sovereign immunity, but I just looked it up and there are exceptions to it. I think this one in particular could fall under a civil rights violation. People routinely get money from excessive force used by police officers, and I believe that does extend to property too. Qualified immunity means it is almost impossible to sue the officers directly, which is why so many people have a problem with it. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the actions of a bad police officer, the officer themself isn't held responsible for their actions. On the other hand, you don't want officers afraid to engage with a dangerous situation because they might bankrupt their family if they do the wrong thing in the heat of the moment. It is a sticky situation, and before smartphones and body cameras there was no real way to know if an officer crossed the line. As technology improves, I expect there to be more personal accountability, while also allowing the officers enough leeway to do their jobs without hesitation.

wl 7mo ago

They chose not to do so. And the courts are no help, because generally speaking, you can't sue the government unless there's a specific law allowing you to do so (sovereign immunity). The police as individuals are generally immune from civil suits unless they violated some clearly established right (qualified immunity).

delfinom 7mo ago
Eh? This falls under tort law for damages caused by the government.
- wl 7mo ago
  The laws that provide a right of action against the government generally don’t cover damages caused by police in the lawful exercise of their duties. So yeah, sovereign immunity.
  - wnoise 7mo ago
    Even though you would think that'd be a taking for public use.
    - wl 7mo ago
      Perhaps it should be, but the courts have not agreed. See Pena v. Los Angeles for an example of an appellate case that rejected this argument. It found that a "police power" exception to the takings clause applies in such cases.

Refreeze5224 7mo ago

Serious answer: cops are not accountable for their behavior, in the vast majority of cases.

quickthrowman 7mo ago

They’re not liable to repair damage incurred from a raid or any other action. If the fire department has to chop your door open with an axe to gain entry to your home, they don’t pay for that either, you do. If the police execute a search warrant on your home and kill your pet or a person, guess who is responsible for cleaning up the blood and mess? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the police.

malfist 7mo ago
There's even a legal case where police took a backhoe to a building and tore one wall completely out instead of negotiating during a hostage situation. The homeowner was unable to get compensation for their destroyed home.
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  His mistake was stopping when the lawsuit failed. Anyone can rent a backhoe. People forget that there is also a court of public opinion you can appeal to.
  - malfist 7mo ago
    Are you suggesting a killdozer v2? I'm not sure what you're implying.
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      Just tear the wall off a relevant party's house and then return it to the rental place.