Insulted by Pendleton, IN Chief of Police...

[bigus_D]

I want good teachers and good police officers, too. My two cents is that the compensation isn't the problem. After all, the same could be said for our armed services, and no one disputes that they have outstanding people and outstanding leadership, with similar pay issues.

I think the problems in both professions stems from the system, rather than the people. It seems to me that most cops I've met are pretty high-quality people. I'm friends with lots of outstanding people who are teachers. I don't know a lot about the internal issues of the police force, only what I know from mine and others' encounters with them.

As for education, I think the problems come from the way it's administered from the top - and the way politics impacts the classroom. Also, it should be easier to fire teachers, when needed. I think government employees should work under the same basic conditions as the private sector, namely that your boss can let you go under his/her discretion, rather than going through a cumbersome process that ensures bad apples stay in the barrel.

So... to try to pull this back to the thread and end this terrible threadjack we've gone down, I assume you'd be in favor of lifting the protection police officers have from civil suit and against the new Indiana law protecting teachers from the same (both mentioned above)?

 

[Denny347]

There are no stats for false arrests in the US because those would have to be submitted by police departments and you guys won't do that, will you? Shoot, departments won't even submit required stats to the DoJ on shootings. Wonder why that is?

You assert that this is a common problem. I assert that it is not, based on the relative rarity of lawsuits we know/hear about. Since you are steadfast that this is a common problem, please let us know where your source comes from? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, only that it is not a common problem. I might change my mind if I see stats that say it is but I have yet to see any. Until then, your opinion is baseless.

 

[SirRealism]

Yea... I see where you are comming from. I just want the best teacher in the classroom when my child is in there learning. I don't think the salary is high enough to bring attract the most talented candidates. Some (MOST) teachers do it because they want to help others. In my wife's case, she left a higher paying job to go get an additional degree so that she could become a teacher (even after prorating salaries to compensate for the additional vacation)... So, I'm not sure where that leaves us... teachers are paid, police officers are paid... if these jobs paid more we might find that more qualified (higher caliber) individuals would apply for the positions.

School choice. You should be able to take your tax dollars to the school that performs. You shouldn't be coerced into government (better term than "public") schools. With the amount that gov't schools take to educate one kid, many private schools can probably teach 2 or 3. That's not a reflection on your wife; that's a reflection on a system that promotes tenure and seniority over performance and innovation. Hmmm, sound like a certain group of highly visible companies that have been in the news lately? (Hint: one of them just got a bailout before filing for bankruptcy.)

[sorry for the threadjack]

 

[dburkhead]

School choice. You should be able to take your tax dollars to the school that performs. You shouldn't be coerced into government (better term than "public") schools. With the amount that gov't schools take to educate one kid, many private schools can probably teach 2 or 3. That's not a reflection on your wife; that's a reflection on a system that promotes tenure and seniority over performance and innovation. Hmmm, sound like a certain group of highly visible companies that have been in the news lately? (Hint: one of them just got a bailout before filing for bankruptcy.)

[sorry for the threadjack]

The frequently touted "voucher" system is not too dissimilar to what we already have in terms of government financial aid for post-secondary education. The main difference is that instead of being universal (for post secondary schooling) it's limited to those with "need."

People can go to the college of their choice. The colleges have to actually make some effort to convince students to bring those dollars to them.

We have one of the finest university systems, if not the finest university system, in the world. There's a reason that even in rather modest schools (such as the University of Akron--my alma mater), both undergrad and grad departments have a very large foreign student population.

Our primary and secondary education, unless you have the finances otherwise, are a government monopoly. We have one of the poorest primary and secondary school systems in the industrialized world.

Conclusions are left as an exercise for the student.

 

[AndersonIN]

Does anyone know where the original topic went to???

 

[dross]

So... to try to pull this back to the thread and end this terrible threadjack we've gone down, I assume you'd be in favor of lifting the protection police officers have from civil suit and against the new Indiana law protecting teachers from the same (both mentioned above)?

Yes, I'm guilty of threadjacking sometimes. In my defense, I plead that often the side issues that come up are very important to me.

As to being able to sue civil servants as individuals, it's a double-edged sword. I think I disagree with them being sued for actions within the scope of their duties. For instance, a cop shoots someone, it's determined to be not criminal, but then he's liable for civil damages. We shouldn't have that. If, however, the cop is selling drugs out of the back of his cruiser, yes, I think he should be individually liable to lawsuit from, say a parent whose kid ODd. This may be the way the law is anyway, I don't know.

Again, I don't think you solve the problems with education or policing by looking at the individuals. A system set up with the proper rewards and punishments will take care of most of the problems.

 

[Denny347]

School choice. You should be able to take your tax dollars to the school that performs. You shouldn't be coerced into government (better term than "public") schools. With the amount that gov't schools take to educate one kid, many private schools can probably teach 2 or 3. That's not a reflection on your wife; that's a reflection on a system that promotes tenure and seniority over performance and innovation. Hmmm, sound like a certain group of highly visible companies that have been in the news lately? (Hint: one of them just got a bailout before filing for bankruptcy.)

[sorry for the threadjack]

100%

 

[Indy317]

Even if someone were to sue and win because of an improper arrest, the award will not be the jackpot that people like you seem to think it will be.

What these internet lawyers don't do, obviously, is go to the federal court websites and actually _read_ the civil cases there. There are only a few cases where people really get a lot of money. Just go to the US District Court of S. Indiana and look at the recent civil suits.

Here is one from 2008:
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/APF130O1.PDF

• 1:06-cv-1513-DFH-JMS - Overton v. Marion County Sheriff's Officer Robert Hicks, et al.
  Jury verdict for plaintiff on false arrest claim and for defendant Beaton on excessive force and malicious prosecution claim. $300,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages awarded to plaintiff on false arrest claim. Verdict returned on July 17, 2008. Note: defendants granted through July 25, 2008, in which to file a brief in support of their motion for judgment as a matter of law; plaintiff granted through August 8, 2008, in which to respond.

The Ball State shooting case:

• 1:04-cv-0294-RLY-TAB - McKinney v. Duplain
  Jury verdict for defendant Duplain and against plaintiff. Verdict returned 2/5/08.

Here is another police lawsuit, from 2007. So far police: 2, plaintiffs: 1.
http://www.brianpsweeney.com/Scottmotion.pdf (This is the Fidler case)

• 1:04-cv-1483-DFH-JMS - Fidler v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
  Jury verdict for defendant. Verdict returned 9/4/07.

• 3:05-cv-109-WGH-RLY - Michael Stollins v. Officer F. Current, et al.
  Jury verdict in favor of Defendants, Officer Frank Current, Officer Jeff Kingery, and Officer Marcus Craig, and against Plaintiff, Michael Stollings, on the claims brought by the Plaintiff, Michael Stollings. Jury verdict in favor of Counterclaimant, Officer Frank Current, and against Counter-Defendant, Michael Stollings, in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) on Officer Frank Current’s counterclaim. Jury verdict returned December 14, 2006.
• 1:05-cv-1706-DFH-WTL - Syberg v. Marion County Sheriff's Department et al
  Jury verdict finding for plaintiff as to certain claims against defendants Reiger, Ferrell, and Wickliffe. Compensatory damages of $230,000; punitive damages of $8,750 as to defendant Reiger, $17,500 as to defendant Ferrell, and $8,750 as to defendant Wickliffe awarded. Please contact court, or check PACER, for more detailed information. Verdict returned 12/8/06.

Juries don't like killers, so it seems:

Powered by Google Docs

• 1:04-cv-1009-LJM-VSS - Espinoza v. City of Indianapolis
  Jury verdict for defendant returned August 29, 2006.
  

So we have six cases against police. Police are cleared four times. One of these times, an officer actually wins a counter-claim. The remaining two the police lose.

Compensatory damages only total $530,000 with punitive damages of $135K.

I would like to know just how much money the plaintiffs actually cleared after fees and taxes. Either way, the idea someone is going to be a millionaire for being wrongfully arrested is a pipe dream. Such a person who refuses decent offers to settle (say in the six figures, if that) will likely find themselves without a lawyer.

The only problem with suing is that the boys in blue don't have to pay.

You are either a liar, or totally clueless. Look at the verdict findings for Syberg, the officers _will_ end up paying something. There are cops out there right now with garnishment orders on their paychecks (if they were unable to pay the full amount outright). The problem isn't the municipality taking care of the cops per se, it is about the plaintiff's desire for money, regardless of where it comes from. There are two parties to every civil suit. The simple fact is that many are settled for next to nothing anyways. Say an officer has to fork over $2,000, will they really change? An IMPD officer makes $55K/year. Over a 20 year period, they will make $1.1M. Over 30 years, $1.65M. This doesn't even factor in off-duty pay, over-time pay, and a take home vehicle that is worth something. So, again, will a one time, $5,000 hit in pay really do anything? Maybe, maybe not. Then you have the officers who are married with kids and have debts, how much garnishment will the court order? Who knows.

If the laws regarding immunity were removed we'd have a whole different ball game in this country. If a cop violated my rights and I could actually sue them, I would. Not the department, not the city. Them. As for arrests, I'd suggest you look into arrests in WI for open carry, ditto across the country. Cops routinely use the BS "disorderly conduct" charge to initiate the arrest and then have to drop the charges later. Most people, for some odd reason won't go after the cops. Can't imagine why not. Too bad, too. Tying up the courts with this would make for a better world. Removal of immunity would make cops toe the line and get those on authority trips off of them.

Cops only get "immunity" if the _courts_ agree their conduct was proper. Gezz, you are acting like no cop has ever been held personally liable for improper conduct. I have posted proof, so I hope you educate yourself on this matter. If cops had no immunity, there would be no cops. If you think I am going to let some blissninnie jury, with no clue on tactics, training, etc. decide my fate, well, screw that...I would rather live on welfare than bust my butt for decades, saving money, etc.. only to have it taken away because some liberals think I shouldn't have shot the guy who stuck me with a knife.

I am glad you would sue the cops. I hope you know what you are doing because lawsuits of this magnitude are very complex and detailed. Maybe you would be OK with civil court, but then your damages would be capped at $6,000 (if I recall). If you think you could get a lawyer to file a good lawsuit without suing the government, I bet you would have a hard time finding one.

Removal of immunity would just make a lot of cops quit. Lawsuits would flood the courts and _always_ go to a jury trial. The jury verdicts would be all over the place, from findings of a few hundred, for giving someone $400K because four or so jurors "felt" that the officer was wrong. You know, there are all kinds of bs civil cases we hear about, and most of us here are of the thinking they shouldn't be allowed. Well why should officers, who do _nothing_ wrong, be allowed to get harmed financially for doing _nothing_ wrong? The problem with your desire to destroy immunity means no court could toss out the lawsuit. The officer will have two choices: Settle, or take it to a jury. I couldn't function at my job dealing with the stress of multiple lawsuits trying to destroy me financially...even though I would know I did _nothing_ wrong. Hell, if you get rid of immunity, even a person who was found guilty of being arrested of a crime could _still_ sue the arresting officer and take it all the way to a jury trial. Is this what you want?

 

[bigus_D]

...
Maybe you would be OK with civil court, but then your damages would be capped at $6,000 (if I recall).
...

$6,000 is the limit for small claims court, not the limit for civil courts. These are two very different things.

 

[Indy317]

$6,000 is the limit for small claims court, not the limit for civil courts. These are two very different things.

I was stupid. I actually was meaning small claims...thanks for making the clarification for everyone though.

 

[Fargo]

Cops only get "immunity" if the _courts_ agree their conduct was proper.

Thats not really accurate. Cops receive qualified or limited immunity, regardless of the propriety of their acts, from suit during the performance of their duties; it is much harder to sue them than a private party. Obviously, it isn't total immunity but it does bar quite a few suits that would be winnable against a private party.

 

[Indy317]

Thats not really accurate. Cops receive qualified or limited immunity, regardless of the propriety of their acts, from suit during the performance of their duties; it is much harder to sue them than a private party. Obviously, it isn't total immunity but it does bar quite a few suits that would be winnable against a private party.

Judges are constantly ruling if the actions of the officer(s) fall under qualified or limited immunity. Your statement about "propriety of their acts" is totally false. If you read the court rulings in the Duplain/Ball State lawsuit, you will see that the appeals court said that even though the plaintiff's "expert" witnesses had some issues, but there was enough to let a jury decide if the officer did wrong or not. Thus, that case went to a jury trial. The only extra hurdle is the qualified or limited immunity, which if the officer did wrong, the courts will let it go forward. If you look at those cases where the officers lost, I would be willing to bet their defense attorneys tried to justify the officers actions and then said that they should be protected with qualified immunity. It doesn't always work. If it was a blanket protection, none of these cases would be settled out of court, the government would just filed the appeal and the cops would _always_ win. They don't.

 

[jerico616]

I grew up in Anderson (right next to Pendleton) and most people who live there are full of themselves, especially the elected officials. Yeah, he was dead wrong, but in his mind he was right, so he stuck to his decision. It is unfortunate that a$$holes like that are elected to high power positions.

 

[Fargo]

Judges are constantly ruling if the actions of the officer(s) fall under qualified or limited immunity. Your statement about "propriety of their acts" is totally false. If you read the court rulings in the Duplain/Ball State lawsuit, you will see that the appeals court said that even though the plaintiff's "expert" witnesses had some issues, but there was enough to let a jury decide if the officer did wrong or not. Thus, that case went to a jury trial. The only extra hurdle is the qualified or limited immunity, which if the officer did wrong, the courts will let it go forward. If you look at those cases where the officers lost, I would be willing to bet their defense attorneys tried to justify the officers actions and then said that they should be protected with qualified immunity. It doesn't always work. If it was a blanket protection, none of these cases would be settled out of court, the government would just filed the appeal and the cops would _always_ win. They don't.

Qualified immunity is just that, qualified. However, the determination of whether or not you have that immunity is largely based upon whether you were acting in an official capacity and what level of discretion was afforded to you in those actions. As such, it isn't really dependent upon the propriety of the actions unless that directly influences one of the factors that determines immunity. There are certain circumstances where decidedly IMPROPER actions still fall within immunity; certainly not ALL but definately SOME. That is my point.

Also, there are some areas were law enforcement is entitled to absolute immunity, such as a prosecutors actions before a grand jury. In those cases, immunity applies regardless of propriety.

See the case below where the police and the prosecutor were protected by both qualified and absolute immunity for action which were found by the court to have clearly broken federal wiretap laws.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Propriety does not always matter when immunity is involved. Immunity specifically functions to prevent suits which would otherwise be allowed against a private party.

I have to say that this is first time I have ever seen a cop argue that his immunity is more limited than it actually is.

 

[Indy317]

Qualified immunity is just that, qualified. However, the determination of whether or not you have that immunity is largely based upon whether you were acting in an official capacity and what level of discretion was afforded to you in those actions.

Propriety does not always matter when immunity is involved. Immunity specifically functions to prevent suits which would otherwise be allowed against a private party.

I have to say that this is first time I have ever seen a cop argue that his immunity is more limited than it actually is.

This makes no sense. In all of those police lawsuits, the cops were acting in their official capacity, yet they were sued. The LAPD officers involved in the Rodney King incident were acting in their official capacities. Maybe I am misunderstanding. When you say "acting in an official capacity," are you saying "on the clock" or "doing the job you are hired to do under the rules and regulations set out by the government?" I always view the phrase "acting in an official capacity" as just "being on the job." I guess that is why some cops can still get sued, because even though they are on the clock, their behavior really wasn't consistent with their job? So if an officer is busted pulling over strippers for sexual favors in lieu of going to jail, he can still be sued because even though he was "on the clock" working as a police officer, the actions are not part of his duties? If improper conduct doesn't matter, then why are cops sued for false arrest, civil rights violations, etc.?

 

[Fargo]

This makes no sense. In all of those police lawsuits, the cops were acting in their official capacity, yet they were sued. The LAPD officers involved in the Rodney King incident were acting in their official capacities. Maybe I am misunderstanding. When you say "acting in an official capacity," are you saying "on the clock" or "doing the job you are hired to do under the rules and regulations set out by the government?" I always view the phrase "acting in an official capacity" as just "being on the job." I guess that is why some cops can still get sued, because even though they are on the clock, their behavior really wasn't consistent with their job? So if an officer is busted pulling over strippers for sexual favors in lieu of going to jail, he can still be sued because even though he was "on the clock" working as a police officer, the actions are not part of his duties? If improper conduct doesn't matter, then why are cops sued for false arrest, civil rights violations, etc.?

There is a very complicated legal analysis based upon both statutes
and caselaw used to determine what if any immunity a cop has in a particular situation. It is heavily reliant on whether or not the cop was on duty, whether he was actually discharging his duties or goofing off, whether he was within his departments policies, whether he was acting in an area he is given discretion in, and his good faith beliefs etc. It is far more that merely "being on the job". If you want truly educated advice on what exactly applies when, I would encourage you to talk to the city attorney's office as they are the ones who defend officers in these suits.

In some circumstances law enforcement is given absolute immunity because of the gravity of the situation and concerns that law enforcement could by paralyzed by the threat of suit.

In other areas, limited or qualified immunity is given where generally there will be immunity but there are ways to get around it; such as a showing of bad faith or willful breach of the law. That was the case in the case I posted above. The officers would normally have been stripped of immunity because of their clear breach of the federal wiretap statute. However, since they had acted in good faith upon the erroneous advice of a prosecutor, the court found that they were still entitled to qualified immunity.