(08-03-2021, 12:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't always agree that an institution should pay for the crimes of an individual, but in this case they should because that man had a history of trouble and his employer did nothing about it. Shame on them.
And that is the point. The police department is trying to claim they are not responsible. Where as if you or me did something like this, our company could be sued because they are not protected by qualified immunity.
(08-03-2021, 11:50 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 11:45 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/georgia...iPwmEgRzBA
FTA: "Christmas is appealing the judge’s decision. She would like to see qualified immunity changed to all associated parties being responsible when an officer is convicted. She can sue Pierson individually, but she said he has no money or job since he is in prison."
Which is a loophole keeping her from being compensated. If he wasn't in prison and he was still a cop, she couldn't get any money either because he would be protected.
(08-03-2021, 12:58 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 12:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't always agree that an institution should pay for the crimes of an individual, but in this case they should because that man had a history of trouble and his employer did nothing about it. Shame on them.
And that is the point. The police department is trying to claim they are not responsible. Where as if you or me did something like this, our company could be sued because they are not protected by qualified immunity.
(08-03-2021, 11:50 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]FTA: "Christmas is appealing the judge’s decision. She would like to see qualified immunity changed to all associated parties being responsible when an officer is convicted. She can sue Pierson individually, but she said he has no money or job since he is in prison."
Which is a loophole keeping her from being compensated. If he wasn't in prison and he was still a cop, she couldn't get any money either because he would be protected.
She's free to sue him because the System worked (ie he's fired and incarcerated), that he has no money doesn't change that fact. Suing the government is just suing the taxpayer and that's not the taxpayers problem.
(08-03-2021, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 12:58 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]And that is the point. The police department is trying to claim they are not responsible. Where as if you or me did something like this, our company could be sued because they are not protected by qualified immunity.
Which is a loophole keeping her from being compensated. If he wasn't in prison and he was still a cop, she couldn't get any money either because he would be protected.
She's free to sue him because the System worked (ie he's fired and incarcerated), that he has no money doesn't change that fact. Suing the government is just suing the taxpayer and that's not the taxpayers problem.
So who is going to pay her medical bills? Who is going to pay for her pain and suffering? So just because it was done by a cop, the police union gets off scot free? Get out of here with that. If he worked for any private company, they would be on the hook because they aren't protected by qualified immunity.
(08-03-2021, 02:16 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]She's free to sue him because the System worked (ie he's fired and incarcerated), that he has no money doesn't change that fact. Suing the government is just suing the taxpayer and that's not the taxpayers problem.
So who is going to pay her medical bills? Who is going to pay for her pain and suffering? So just because it was done by a cop, the police union gets off scot free? Get out of here with that. If he worked for any private company, they would be on the hook because they aren't protected by qualified immunity.
It's a sad story, one for which I don't think the taxpayers should be on the hook.
(08-03-2021, 03:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 02:16 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]So who is going to pay her medical bills? Who is going to pay for her pain and suffering? So just because it was done by a cop, the police union gets off scot free? Get out of here with that. If he worked for any private company, they would be on the hook because they aren't protected by qualified immunity.
It's a sad story, one for which I don't think the taxpayers should be on the hook.
Normally I would agree, but in this case Dimson is correct.
If George Floyd's family can sue, this woman should be able to as well.
This happened while he was on the clock, they should be liable for it
(08-03-2021, 03:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 02:16 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]So who is going to pay her medical bills? Who is going to pay for her pain and suffering? So just because it was done by a cop, the police union gets off scot free? Get out of here with that. If he worked for any private company, they would be on the hook because they aren't protected by qualified immunity.
It's a sad story, one for which I don't think the taxpayers should be on the hook.
I guarantee if you go after the police retirement fund, a lot of this will stop. The tax payers wouldn't be on the hook, other cops would.
If a private company can be held liable for the actions of it's employees that hurt other people, I think the federal government can be held to the same standards.
(08-03-2021, 09:53 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If a private company can be held liable for the actions of it's employees that hurt other people, I think the federal government can be held to the same standards.
The cop was a Fed?
(08-03-2021, 10:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 09:53 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If a private company can be held liable for the actions of it's employees that hurt other people, I think the federal government can be held to the same standards.
The cop was a Fed?
Any government.
I don't believe that employers should be held liable for the criminal activities of the employees unless the employer was complicit in the crime, but that's a different argument.
(08-03-2021, 10:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2021, 09:53 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If a private company can be held liable for the actions of it's employees that hurt other people, I think the federal government can be held to the same standards.
The cop was a Fed?
My bad. Just meant government. The employer should be held responsible if a person can prove there was not proper oversight. So, in the example given, there were multiple signs that show this cop was a bad actor and the police department did nothing. I don't see why the department should be protected. I hate, as the taxpayer, to pay for stuff like this, but this is a part of holding the government accountable. We have to create some avenues that empower the citizens. Imo, this is why our government has run amuck.