6 ms·

This should outrage any thinking citizen. We need a new policy for instances of excessive use of force by police: if any such is suspected, all officers involv

by erbo 12y ago

This should outrage any thinking citizen. We need a new policy for instances of excessive use of force by police: if any such is suspected, all officers involved must be immediately suspended, without pay, while an impartial judge, not a police "Internal Affairs Division" (since police officers too often try to "protect their own"), investigates to see whether the claim is justified. If it's not, the officer(s) can be reinstated and given back pay. If, however, the police did use excessive force: (1) The officer(s) involved must be criminally indicted and prosecuted for any applicable charges. In this case, it would likely be "premeditated assault with a deadly weapon," and, if, God forbid, that child dies, the charge becomes first-degree murder. If convicted, the officer(s) must then be fired, losing all pension and benefits. (2) The officer(s) must lose any and all immunity to lawsuit and/or damages under state law, including any "homestead exemption," making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a bridge if necessary. Perhaps knowing that there might be consequences like this will make some of these officers think and double-check their facts before deciding to play G.I. Joe. If they think these rules are too tough, well, they always have an option: They can resign and go work for a living. To paraphrase Super Chicken, "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."

Crito 12y ago
> "making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a bridge if necessary." General question: could the spouse of somebody being sued for every penny they have insulate their risk by divorcing the person being sued and winning some of their assets before the lawsuit was complete? I'm thinking that if I was being sued, was almost certainly going to lose, and would lose everything, I would want to try divorcing my spouse to ensure that they were able to retain enough of our formerly joint assets to take care of themselves.
- 300bps 12y ago
  It is complicated and state specific. In my state it would not be necessary to divorce to protect your largest asset - your house. Any house owned by a husband and wife that is titled as Joint Tenants of the Entirety (default) is protected from creditors of the husband OR wife (but not AND).
  - erbo 12y ago
    I'd remove that exemption in this case. I want an officer that uses excessive force to be at risk of losing his house, his car, and all of his assets right down to his underwear. And I want him to be aware of this, because I want that knowledge to influence his decision to use that force in the first place. I want him to know that he's literally laying everything on the line. (Again, if he doesn't like this, he's free to resign.) I want that officer to consider if, instead of using all his shiny military toys in a flashy no-knock raid, perhaps some old-fashioned police work might work better. Instead of storming the place in search of the suspect, how about just staking it out and waiting until the guy goes out for beer? Instead of charging in with M-16s blazing because the guy might flush drugs down the toilet, how about intercepting the sewer lines from the house and watching in case drugs get flushed out? But those just require patience and legwork, and you don't get to be all gung-ho with your fancy SWAT gear and your armored vehicles and all that.
rayiner 12y ago
This is just senseless ranting. 1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. 2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime. 3) Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had died, it would most likely be negligent homicide. 4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing meritless lawsuits.
- freehunter 12y ago
  >It's unconstitutional as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. Bullshit. The police can throw me in jail before a trial, preventing me from going to work. How's that not a violation of due process? >It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime. True. You could sue them for enough that they could no longer make the payments on their house, though.
  - discardorama 12y ago
    > Bullshit. The police can throw me in jail before a trial, preventing me from going to work. How's that not a violation of due process? Because the police, over time, have put laws in place to protect their jobs even in the case of severe abuse. Why do you think the POA (Police/"Peace" Officers Association) goes around endorsing/attacking local political candidates? Consider the shootings in Albuquerque. 26 people killed by ABQ cops in the last few years; and not a single officer held accountable. Even when there's unambiguous police video of abuse! http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/20/albuquerque_police_killings_gruesome_video_shows_cops_shooting_a_homeless.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/20/albuquerqu...
  - ocfx 12y ago
    They have to give you a bail hearing within a day or two if they determine you aren't dangerous to go back out in public they will set a bail amount and you pay it and leave. That's not really being thrown in jail, that's just being in holding.

by erbo 12y ago

Crito 12y ago

> "making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a bridge if necessary." General question: could the spouse of somebody being sued for every penny they have insulate their risk by divorcing the person being sued and winning some of their assets before the lawsuit was complete? I'm thinking that if I was being sued, was almost certainly going to lose, and would lose everything, I would want to try divorcing my spouse to ensure that they were able to retain enough of our formerly joint assets to take care of themselves.

300bps 12y ago
It is complicated and state specific. In my state it would not be necessary to divorce to protect your largest asset - your house. Any house owned by a husband and wife that is titled as Joint Tenants of the Entirety (default) is protected from creditors of the husband OR wife (but not AND).
- erbo 12y ago
  I'd remove that exemption in this case. I want an officer that uses excessive force to be at risk of losing his house, his car, and all of his assets right down to his underwear. And I want him to be aware of this, because I want that knowledge to influence his decision to use that force in the first place. I want him to know that he's literally laying everything on the line. (Again, if he doesn't like this, he's free to resign.) I want that officer to consider if, instead of using all his shiny military toys in a flashy no-knock raid, perhaps some old-fashioned police work might work better. Instead of storming the place in search of the suspect, how about just staking it out and waiting until the guy goes out for beer? Instead of charging in with M-16s blazing because the guy might flush drugs down the toilet, how about intercepting the sewer lines from the house and watching in case drugs get flushed out? But those just require patience and legwork, and you don't get to be all gung-ho with your fancy SWAT gear and your armored vehicles and all that.

rayiner 12y ago

This is just senseless ranting. 1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. 2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime. 3) Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had died, it would most likely be negligent homicide. 4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing meritless lawsuits.

freehunter 12y ago
>It's unconstitutional as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. Bullshit. The police can throw me in jail before a trial, preventing me from going to work. How's that not a violation of due process? >It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime. True. You could sue them for enough that they could no longer make the payments on their house, though.
- discardorama 12y ago
  > Bullshit. The police can throw me in jail before a trial, preventing me from going to work. How's that not a violation of due process? Because the police, over time, have put laws in place to protect their jobs even in the case of severe abuse. Why do you think the POA (Police/"Peace" Officers Association) goes around endorsing/attacking local political candidates? Consider the shootings in Albuquerque. 26 people killed by ABQ cops in the last few years; and not a single officer held accountable. Even when there's unambiguous police video of abuse! http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/20/albuquerque_police_killings_gruesome_video_shows_cops_shooting_a_homeless.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/20/albuquerqu...
- ocfx 12y ago
  They have to give you a bail hearing within a day or two if they determine you aren't dangerous to go back out in public they will set a bail amount and you pay it and leave. That's not really being thrown in jail, that's just being in holding.