Lawsuits against officers have gone down since the city has started to fight those lawsuits instead of settling out of court. There is nothing in the contract demanding more proof before an officer is fired. When an officer is fired they have the some rights afford by law and due process. Most likely the case ends up in front of an independent hearing officer to settle the case. Incidentally the last 4 officers fired by the department have been upheld.
Kevin Stoll Kenny Neighborhood ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul weir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:33 PM Subject: [Mpls] on "thumpers" > > > 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. 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 > 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 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
