--- paul weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> People ask over and over again why the city so often
> concedes large
> out-of-court settements to plaintiffs in "thumping"
> suits yet never
> manages to fire the cops involved.
EF:
A civil suit is not a criminal prosecution. When
the city is sued in a police brutality case the suit
is against the city, not the officer. The officer is
usually not a party to these suits. The city has deep
pockets and the officer doesn't.
In an out-of-court settlement there is usually no
admission of guilt.
There is a legal term called "hold harmless" that
you should look into. "Hold harmless" provisions are
probably in the union contract and they may be
required by state law.
I'm not a lawyer either. Hopefully, somebody else
can give a better description of "hold harmless" and
its significance.
If your goal is to rid of notorious thumpers,
perhaps civil suits should be filed against the
individuals, not the city. The attorneys would have to
be paid by the hour, or work pro bono.
Ed Fesler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis
Corcoran
I'm no lawyer,
> but I suspect one
> of the reasons these cops remain beyond reach is
> that the city's
> contract with the Police Federation requires much
> more stringent
> proof of culpable behavior than the courts require
> for determining
> liability. If I'm right in thinking so, it would
> mean that that the
> city has waltzed itself into a vicious circle: Cops
> whose viciousness
> results in court settlements of hundreds of
> thousands if not millions
> of dollars cannot be fired because of an agreement
> the city itself
> negotiated; but since they cannot be fired, they're
> put back out in
> the street where they generate -- you guessed it --
> more law suits. I
> also suspect that when the city justifies itself for
> settling these
> cases out of court by describing them as " too
> dangerous" to
> litigate, we are getting a fairly realistic
> assessment not of the
> legal merit of the city's position but of the
> professional competency
> of its own attorneys.
>
> Finally, I would point out an ironic symmetry here.
> Sociologists
> assure us that the vast preponderance of mayhem that
> occurs in our
> streets is caused by a relatively small number of
> criminals, perhaps
> as few as two or three percent of the overall
> criminal population.
> This is a proposition that most people seem to have
> no trouble
> accepting. We're also assured by the same
> authorities that only a
> tiny number of cops engage in brutality. Now, why
> is it so easy for
> most of us to accept the former, and so difficult
> for some of us to
> accept the latter? I have my own ideas, but I'd like
> to hear what
> others think.
>
> Paul Weir
> Phillips
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
