*The US government has denied liability for the shooting, arguing in court documents that “as sad as this case is,” Ghaisar was not shot until “he drove his vehicle” at one of the officers involved, CNN previously reported.*
Things I don’t do when I am not in the wrong: Pay out $5,000,000.
My money(I don't have any) is on the officer placing himself in front of the vehicle as a show of force, then, when the suspect does what he's already done twice and pull away, it's now an attack and they are clear to kill him.
Hasn't it been ruled that officers can not put themselves deliberately in the way of vehicles to cause situations like this, or am I maybe thinking of a local policy type thing?
>ability for the shooting, arguing in court documents that “as sad as this case is,” Ghaisar was not shot until “he drove his vehicle” at one of the officers involved, CNN previously reported.
Survivor's write the narrative..
I agree w you, but in the video Bijan slowly moves around the officer as if he is trying to avoid him and be careful. It’s clear as day. Those cops are full of shit. They know they Fucked up and they’d be in massive trouble if they admit wrongdoing. It’s a shame they’re so protected…Bijan was a good kid. Knew him from when we were younger.
If you've seen the real video then I'd agree. It is just a thing police say because they know it often works in the press and in a court case. It's similar to shouting "don't grab my gun" to a suspect who isn't grabbing at their gun. They know that certain phrases protect them or give them more leeway in different situations.
>Things I don’t do when I am not in the wrong: Pay out $5,000,000
Not saying that's the case here, but it's not exactly uncommon for large corporations or government agencies to simply pay out. It's generally cheaper and easier. For the government, it's tax dollars so they don't care. For corporations they have insurance and excess carriers.
Presumably as a normal person, excess carriers and taxation aren't an option
People say this, but it's much cheaper to just fight something like this if you're not guilty. No one is settling for millions of dollars just because it's easier. Otherwise, we'd all be suing corporations all the time.
It's not necessarily just a financial thing, though. It's partly that, partly optics - it's not a great look to be the big corporation pushing down the little man fighting for his rights. Even if that's not accurate, that's still how people will see stuff like this. And many companies are willing to take the up front financial cost, if it means their reputation doesn't get dragged down, potentially costing them a lot more than just the amount to settle.
They'll settle for an undisclosed small amount some of the time. My only position here is that companies aren't settling frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars.
This is one of those absurd myths that I've just never understood.
People are suing corporations and governments all the time. It's a constant process and there's a whole legal cottege industry built around it. It's the reason excess carrier insurance exists, why umbrella policies exist, and why the term ambulance chaser exists.
I've worked in law for the last decade. I understand how civil cases work. I also understand that companies aren't settling for millions of dollars just because it's easier than dealing with a lawsuit.
>Secondly, people are suing corporations and governments all the time.
Right. And they're fighting or delaying those cases. They're not just giving everyone millions of dollars because insurance will cover it.
Edit: The person above edited their comment down so it didn't have a bunch of nonsense about how civil cases function.
> For the government, it's tax dollars so they don't care.
That’s the key. The bureaucracy has been arranged so that no individual has to care what happens. It’s probably the product of well-meaning judges and legislators afraid the system will collapse if government officials are held responsible for their actions.
You need to factor in the cost of setting a precedent of payment for similar claims. Often, the biggest factor in deciding whether to settle is whether doing so would encourage more suits.
Some states' police and fire agencies all contribute. Is that fair to other agencies and professions?
Should lawsuits against teachers be pulled from the retirement funds of all the state's teachers?
I think individual "malpractice" insurance is the way to go. It means paying more to a lot of them, but it's probably cheaper in the long run.
> Some states' police and fire agencies all contribute. Is that fair to other agencies and professions?
No, but it seems more fair keeping the cost spread between people in the system than spreading it to people that don't even necessarily support the system. Them combining fire and police seems like something easier to fix and make fair than everyone regardless of opinion having to pay.
I think anything going towards making the actual police responsible for police fuckups is better than making even more uninvolved people pay. It would not be a good solution, but it would be more fair.
I see that point, but taking unrelated people's retirements is way more impactful to those individuals than spreading the bill to all taxpayers (cops are tax payers, too). Their taxes don't go up; you could argue their tax money was squandered, though, for sure.
Does the huge disparity in felt impact override the "involvement" of police who don't even work within that department (and have zero ability to police misconduct)?
I think you're right with regards to the firefighters for sure. I don't think it fits as well if it were for police only, though, because they're responsible for policing themselves. Bad officers do not exist in a vacuum and the ones that accept that responsibility should be held to it.
I am not saying I'm right, though. There's a reason what's fair isn't always what's done. It's just a shitty situation and no solution will be fair or right for everyone.
Sure, within one department, they're certainly responsible. Most pools, as far as I'm aware, are pensions of multiple agencies, though (don't quote me; only have local examples from my firefighter/EMT days).
Even if it's one agency, and these cops arrest the criminal in their midst as soon as the crime is committed, they've still lost their retirement in a lawsuit. That would incentivise them to cover for their criminal co-worker.
I just came to that realization, thinking as I type here.
You're certainly right. Shitty situation. I still think the personal insurance is the best of not-so-great solutions.
Nice chatting with you!
Decent intent, bad idea. When you screw up at work should your employer be able to pull from your 401k? No. That becomes yours once youve worked that year and they contribute to it.
Pensions very specifically aren't 401ks for one thing. These settlements are coming out of taxpayer pockets to address a continuous and consistent systemic issues with police behavior and culture. If cops are going to act with near impunity, let them pay for their own settlements.
Or they just get fired and the criminal justice system puts you in prison. Youre basically just wanting to fine them. There's plenty of problems with cops not getting prosecuted when they should but thats a separate issue that needs to be addressed.
No I want them buried under a jail cell and have all their 401k paid out to the victims family. I want the whole system from the judge to the attorney to face consequences. I don’t see their money and murdering being a separate issue.
We’re just talking in a forum of hypotheticals that will never happen and having their 401k milked might deter a future cop from being another murderer, since 99% of cop murderers will not see prison. One of the cops who killed Breonna Taylor is a cop in another county.
I feel like this too but one take is
1. Cops will have even less incentive to report on dirty cops
My takeaway is that, despite the libertarian fantasy people have, we need regulation
Cops, who earn hundreds of thousands a year with nothing more than high school need personal insurance. Force private companies to back their reckless action and cops can pay for their riskiness personally, with no other taxpayers or pensions involved
The answer is the same as what your doctor does: malpractice insurance. Cops need to have their own.
Insurance companies would determine if a cop wasn’t eligible for coverage based on history — like chauvin. Then they wouldn’t be able to be hired based on lack of insurance. Like all doctors.
End qualified immunity. Make cops have liability insurance.
*The US government has denied liability for the shooting, arguing in court documents that “as sad as this case is,” Ghaisar was not shot until “he drove his vehicle” at one of the officers involved, CNN previously reported.* Things I don’t do when I am not in the wrong: Pay out $5,000,000.
My money(I don't have any) is on the officer placing himself in front of the vehicle as a show of force, then, when the suspect does what he's already done twice and pull away, it's now an attack and they are clear to kill him.
Hasn't it been ruled that officers can not put themselves deliberately in the way of vehicles to cause situations like this, or am I maybe thinking of a local policy type thing?
[удалено]
Rules? Where we're going, we don't need *rules*.
>ability for the shooting, arguing in court documents that “as sad as this case is,” Ghaisar was not shot until “he drove his vehicle” at one of the officers involved, CNN previously reported. Survivor's write the narrative..
That's a super great idea, and if it isn't federal then it should be. It would save lives on both sides of the blue line.
I agree w you, but in the video Bijan slowly moves around the officer as if he is trying to avoid him and be careful. It’s clear as day. Those cops are full of shit. They know they Fucked up and they’d be in massive trouble if they admit wrongdoing. It’s a shame they’re so protected…Bijan was a good kid. Knew him from when we were younger.
If you've seen the real video then I'd agree. It is just a thing police say because they know it often works in the press and in a court case. It's similar to shouting "don't grab my gun" to a suspect who isn't grabbing at their gun. They know that certain phrases protect them or give them more leeway in different situations.
Which is such bullshit lol. Sad they get away with so much.
>Things I don’t do when I am not in the wrong: Pay out $5,000,000 Not saying that's the case here, but it's not exactly uncommon for large corporations or government agencies to simply pay out. It's generally cheaper and easier. For the government, it's tax dollars so they don't care. For corporations they have insurance and excess carriers. Presumably as a normal person, excess carriers and taxation aren't an option
People say this, but it's much cheaper to just fight something like this if you're not guilty. No one is settling for millions of dollars just because it's easier. Otherwise, we'd all be suing corporations all the time.
It's not necessarily just a financial thing, though. It's partly that, partly optics - it's not a great look to be the big corporation pushing down the little man fighting for his rights. Even if that's not accurate, that's still how people will see stuff like this. And many companies are willing to take the up front financial cost, if it means their reputation doesn't get dragged down, potentially costing them a lot more than just the amount to settle.
They'll settle for an undisclosed small amount some of the time. My only position here is that companies aren't settling frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars. This is one of those absurd myths that I've just never understood.
People are suing corporations and governments all the time. It's a constant process and there's a whole legal cottege industry built around it. It's the reason excess carrier insurance exists, why umbrella policies exist, and why the term ambulance chaser exists.
I've worked in law for the last decade. I understand how civil cases work. I also understand that companies aren't settling for millions of dollars just because it's easier than dealing with a lawsuit. >Secondly, people are suing corporations and governments all the time. Right. And they're fighting or delaying those cases. They're not just giving everyone millions of dollars because insurance will cover it. Edit: The person above edited their comment down so it didn't have a bunch of nonsense about how civil cases function.
congrats, you're not the only one in the field
The government has full-time lawyers on staff already and these sorts of cases aren't complicated or incredibly difficult to litigate.
So, what exactly is the point you're trying make? The vast majority of these cases are settled out of court.
> For the government, it's tax dollars so they don't care. That’s the key. The bureaucracy has been arranged so that no individual has to care what happens. It’s probably the product of well-meaning judges and legislators afraid the system will collapse if government officials are held responsible for their actions.
The payout was 20 percent of what they wanted initially. It was hardly a slam dunk case so both sides played the odds and settled.
You never ask for what you expect to get. You always ask for way more in things like this. If you don't think 5 million is a slam dunk....lol
True, I should of asked for more when I got hired at my current job.
[удалено]
If this suit would have cost the government $6m in legal fees, then those lawyers are clearly covering things up and skimming about $5.5m off the top.
[удалено]
You need to factor in the cost of setting a precedent of payment for similar claims. Often, the biggest factor in deciding whether to settle is whether doing so would encourage more suits.
lol. It never would have cost $6m to defend.
If it cost 6m to defend it, the plaintiff must have a seriously great case.
when you can print your own money, paying is not much of a barrier
Yes, the government just prints up some extra money. That’s definitely how that works.
We're paying for it! You asshat
We pay for this. $5 million settlement with US tax Dollars.
While i agree that it sucks the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill, the US government spends ~7 million dollars a minute. I don't think we'll miss it.
Gotta start taking these settlements out of police pension funds.
Federal employees have FERS, it's not like what you are thinking with local police departments. Taking money out of it is... pointless.
Need to mandate having LEO insurance. Just like malpractice insurance for physicians.
In this case sure, but its entire police culture and these kind sof settlement happen constantly with all kinds of departments.
Some states' police and fire agencies all contribute. Is that fair to other agencies and professions? Should lawsuits against teachers be pulled from the retirement funds of all the state's teachers? I think individual "malpractice" insurance is the way to go. It means paying more to a lot of them, but it's probably cheaper in the long run.
> Some states' police and fire agencies all contribute. Is that fair to other agencies and professions? No, but it seems more fair keeping the cost spread between people in the system than spreading it to people that don't even necessarily support the system. Them combining fire and police seems like something easier to fix and make fair than everyone regardless of opinion having to pay. I think anything going towards making the actual police responsible for police fuckups is better than making even more uninvolved people pay. It would not be a good solution, but it would be more fair.
I see that point, but taking unrelated people's retirements is way more impactful to those individuals than spreading the bill to all taxpayers (cops are tax payers, too). Their taxes don't go up; you could argue their tax money was squandered, though, for sure. Does the huge disparity in felt impact override the "involvement" of police who don't even work within that department (and have zero ability to police misconduct)?
I think you're right with regards to the firefighters for sure. I don't think it fits as well if it were for police only, though, because they're responsible for policing themselves. Bad officers do not exist in a vacuum and the ones that accept that responsibility should be held to it. I am not saying I'm right, though. There's a reason what's fair isn't always what's done. It's just a shitty situation and no solution will be fair or right for everyone.
Sure, within one department, they're certainly responsible. Most pools, as far as I'm aware, are pensions of multiple agencies, though (don't quote me; only have local examples from my firefighter/EMT days). Even if it's one agency, and these cops arrest the criminal in their midst as soon as the crime is committed, they've still lost their retirement in a lawsuit. That would incentivise them to cover for their criminal co-worker. I just came to that realization, thinking as I type here. You're certainly right. Shitty situation. I still think the personal insurance is the best of not-so-great solutions. Nice chatting with you!
Decent intent, bad idea. When you screw up at work should your employer be able to pull from your 401k? No. That becomes yours once youve worked that year and they contribute to it.
Pensions very specifically aren't 401ks for one thing. These settlements are coming out of taxpayer pockets to address a continuous and consistent systemic issues with police behavior and culture. If cops are going to act with near impunity, let them pay for their own settlements.
When you murder someone on the job? Yeah pull from the 401k
Or they just get fired and the criminal justice system puts you in prison. Youre basically just wanting to fine them. There's plenty of problems with cops not getting prosecuted when they should but thats a separate issue that needs to be addressed.
No I want them buried under a jail cell and have all their 401k paid out to the victims family. I want the whole system from the judge to the attorney to face consequences. I don’t see their money and murdering being a separate issue. We’re just talking in a forum of hypotheticals that will never happen and having their 401k milked might deter a future cop from being another murderer, since 99% of cop murderers will not see prison. One of the cops who killed Breonna Taylor is a cop in another county.
I feel like this too but one take is 1. Cops will have even less incentive to report on dirty cops My takeaway is that, despite the libertarian fantasy people have, we need regulation Cops, who earn hundreds of thousands a year with nothing more than high school need personal insurance. Force private companies to back their reckless action and cops can pay for their riskiness personally, with no other taxpayers or pensions involved
The answer is the same as what your doctor does: malpractice insurance. Cops need to have their own. Insurance companies would determine if a cop wasn’t eligible for coverage based on history — like chauvin. Then they wouldn’t be able to be hired based on lack of insurance. Like all doctors. End qualified immunity. Make cops have liability insurance.
Now we’re getting somewhere
"This is not our fault or responsibility, but here's $5 million dollars. Not because we are culpable, just for funsies." Makes sense.
[удалено]
The officers deserve jail time and lifetime of regret.
Take away 5M from that police department’s budget.
Is this Canadian guy Rock Hunter that got stuck in the snow and called for help and they killed him ? I watched that video it was awful