|
Dead Reckoning posted:[..] unless he knew (or was so deliberately ignorant that he should have known) that it was the wrong house and chainsawed it anyway. Huh.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Space Gopher posted:<One officer shoots the suspect, who was unarmed, presented no threat, and shouldn't have been shot> It's a pretty high bar to clear, and it isn't applicable to this case since established precedent held that what the officer did does not constitute a civil rights violation. As far as I can tell, you'd need a case where someone basically says, "I don't know what civil rights are and have never cared to learn about precedents regarding them."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:I still want to know the details of this scenario because my mental picture is the guy heroically HERE'S JOHNNYing a non-burning house while smoke rises from the house next door. An automated sensor called the firefighters in the middle of the night over smoke in my apartment building the other month. When the firefighters showed up they could smell smoke but couldn't spot the source or any hotspots so they proceeded to break 12 doors (there was no active fire). My landlord said the owner's insurance was going to have to pay for all of the busted doors. El Mero Mero fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Also I feel like competently executing the wrong information vs incompetenly executing the proper information should make a difference. Just to weigh in on this, whether the firefighter transposed the numbers, or the dispatcher gave him the wrong number, or the firefighter is just a loving imbecile who is too stupid to be a firefighter, I would still want him to personally have immunity from a civil lawsuit. Let the city pay the homeowner for it, its a training or disciplinary issue, let the fire department retrain or terminate their workers if they need to. I generally agree with immunity for police officers in most cases too, we don't want cops to be personally sued when someone fractures a wrist while fighting an arrest or something, its just that we start (understandably) taking a good hard 2nd look at immunity when people are dead for what looks to a reasonable person to be a bullshit unjustified shooting. I'm not sure what the answer is, but right now police are being excused and protected too often for bad shootings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
 nice false equivalency, dr, and way to hyperbolize my point. I never said she should be sued into poverty, not did I say it was a bad shoot. I simply feel QI shouldn’t apply in this situation and it should be left to a jury to decide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I simply feel QI shouldn’t apply in this situation and it should be left to a jury to decide. If the plaintiff wants a ruling on the civil rights issue, she should sue the department and let a jury decide that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Being killed for no reason is absolutely a violation of one's fourth amendment right to be secure in one's person, but the government likes killing people so
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:An automated sensor called the firefighters in the middle of the night over smoke in my apartment building the other month. When the firefighters showed up they could smell smoke but couldn't spot the source or any hotspots so they proceeded to break 12 doors (there was no active fire). My landlord said the owner's insurance was going to have to pay for all of the busted doors. I mean, I assume the other guy's situation was actually something like this. Less concerning than yet another dead unarmed person but still odd at best that we're supposed to accept there's nothing wrong with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:I still want to know the details of this scenario because my mental picture is the guy heroically HERE'S JOHNNYing a non-burning house while smoke rises from the house next door. I saw this in an episode of Cops once. Cop thought the house next door to the fire was the one on fire and started smashing windows until the little old lady came out to see what the noise was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
duz posted:I saw this in an episode of Cops once. Cop thought the house next door to the fire was the one on fire and started smashing windows until the little old lady came out to see what the noise was. https://youtu.be/PY9qVYsAiNk
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is absolutely an opportunity for the accuser to have their day in court on the civil rights question, but the proper venue is a suit against the department, not the individual officer. If the courts rule that the plaintiff's rights were violated, that would establish a new standard, and any officer who acted in a similar manner in the future would not be entitled to QI. The officer is the proper party because 42 USC 1983 says it is. If the city wants to indemnify its employees it's welcome to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah like, what is the cause of action against the city genius? Before you say "1983, Monell" by the way, consider that that usually doesn't work when trying to sue police departments for some hosed up reason. Even if it does work, you'd have to establish supervisory responsibility somehow. Source: worked at a civil rights firm as a non-attorney. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:I still want to know the details of this scenario because my mental picture is the guy heroically HERE'S JOHNNYing a non-burning house while smoke rises from the house next door.  Pittsburgh is full of really poorly designed older housing that are either connected, semi-connected, or just with a tiny gap. Very late at nigh, one house was on fire and we suspected it had moved from house to house around the neighborhood, and we were told to investigate several of them, even forcibly if we couldn't get in. The whole neighborhood was covered in a film of smoke coming from the original fire. It was somewhat chaotic scene, and I don't really know who was in charge or what was the overal plan, but we were told to investigate a particular house. The people in there throught they were being broken into, and had no idea of the events around them. When they wouldn't open the door, and visibility was getting lower and lower, I decided to use a chainsaw on the door because Haligan tool was just tearing the jamb up and not forcing it open properly. I cut the door from midway into a half, kneeled under and opened it, and we brought a hose line into the house knocking over all kinds of stuff, with the connectors damaging the floor and hose knocking over some vases. I had to confront the super upset home owner, and politely quickly tell them what is going on. He was mad as all hell, but evacuation was obviously to his benefit anyway. He tried to sue all kinds of people after the incident. I can't explain a good proper picture of the event since I had gotten out of the engine and told to just do things withouth explanation. The incident commander most likely had a big picture and an idea what she intended to do. It's just nice that I can't be sued for the door, the entry, the overall damage from the hose inside the house, or any of that. I was using my training to obey orders, and after running into a door, I used my training to get through a door as instructed, then pulled a hoseline into a house that could be on fire as trained to. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 10:27
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fine. Carry on, I'm just being an rear end on the internet. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It's just nice that I can't be sued for the door, the entry, the overall damage from the hose inside the house, or any of that. I was using my training to obey orders, and after running into a door, I used my training to get through a door as instructed, then pulled a hoseline into a house that could be on fire as trained to. KernelSlanders posted:The officer is the proper party because 42 USC 1983 says it is. If the city wants to indemnify its employees it's welcome to. Firefighters existed pre-1971 this doesn't seem like it can be a real complaint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
I am kind of ok with "just following orders" not excusing people from the consequences of their actions tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
The problem is that a lot of state and local governments have passed indemnification statutes that don't apply when an officer is exceeding his authority, and they argue that any officer who brutalizes someone acted without authorization. Some places don't even indemnify at all, although I think that's pretty uncommon now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Javid posted:I am kind of ok with "just following orders" not excusing people from the consequences of their actions tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Yeah at that point I don't really care who pays, be it the dude who did the smashing, or the dude who did the ordering, or the department itself, or the insurance of any of the previous three parties, as long as the random citizen isn't stuck with massive repair bills for daring to live in the vicinity of a suspected fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Javid posted:I am kind of ok with "just following orders" not excusing people from the consequences of their actions tbh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders It generally has to be an explicitly illegal or a war crime for that defense to not apply to junior officers or enlisted men. Note that Dostler was executed for following Hitler's commando orders, not whatever privates were on the firing squad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Some cities have a ”fire department damage fund” used to pay out acceptable third-party damages, or it is drawn from a city damage fund if the city doesn’t insure it’s vehicle fleet for liability insurance, like bigger cities often don’t. Or city uses its maintenance workers to fix damage. Or doesn’t do anything because Murica. I’ve heard so many different systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Law goons: why doesn't respondeat superior apply to local police departments? I understand it doesn't apply to state officials because of sovereign immunity, but I've heard that local governments do not enjoy the sovereign immunity of states. It seems like ordinary torts liability for police departments would be pretty practical and eliminate the need for reliance on the federal bench's goodwill in applying statutes like 1983.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Javid posted:Yeah at that point I don't really care who pays, be it the dude who did the smashing, or the dude who did the ordering, or the department itself, or the insurance of any of the previous three parties, as long as the random citizen isn't stuck with massive repair bills for daring to live in the vicinity of a suspected fire. Javid posted:I am kind of ok with "just following orders" not excusing people from the consequences of their actions tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Javid posted:I am kind of ok with "just following orders" not excusing people from the consequences of their actions tbh. To be fair there's a difference between following orders in gassing people/shooting people, and following orders going into the wrong house evacuating people under the belief that it's on fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:To be fair there's a difference between following orders in gassing people/shooting people, and following orders going into the wrong house evacuating people under the belief that it's on fire. E: Or let's say that the Supreme Court rules that whatever method a state is using for its executions is cruel and unusual. Should the families of the prisoners executed with that method be able to go back and sue the corrections officers who carried out the executions for violating their relatives' civil rights? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Maybe we shouldn't be in the business of executing people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Whether we should or not isn't relevant to the question of whether COs should be individually liable for carrying out what they believed to be a lawful execution of behalf of the state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Whether we should or not isn't relevant to the question of whether COs should be individually liable for carrying out what they believed to be a lawful execution of behalf of the state. But in the examples given, the execution wasn't lawful. They may have believed it to be lawful, but that belief was in error.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:But in the examples given, the execution wasn't lawful. They may have believed it to be lawful, but that belief was in error. If their legally incorrect belief was reasonable, they should be immune. The bottom line is that people who do something on behalf of the state as an employee or elected official should not be held personally liable unless their purported belief that their actions were lawful is so utterly insane and so completely unreasonable that it is far more likely that they knew it was unlawful and are now lying to save themselves. If their belief was only pretty unreasonable and somewhat insane to the point where they are merely imbeciles who never should have been hired in the first place or were at least badly trained, then they should still probably not be personally liable, but the government should be held accountable for poor hiring and/or training.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If their legally incorrect belief was reasonable, they should be immune. The bottom line is that people who do something on behalf of the state as an employee or elected official should not be held personally liable unless their purported belief that their actions were lawful is so utterly insane and so completely unreasonable that it is far more likely that they knew it was unlawful and are now lying to save themselves. If their belief was only pretty unreasonable and somewhat insane to the point where they are merely imbeciles who never should have been hired in the first place or were at least badly trained, then they should still probably not be personally liable, but the government should be held accountable for poor hiring and/or training. The only reason this is up for argument is that the government itself is also immune to lawsuits creating this ridiculous conundrum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:But in the examples given, the execution wasn't lawful. They may have believed it to be lawful, but that belief was in error. It was actually. It was a horrifying miscarriage of justice, but the guy was presumably tried, convicted, sentenced. It would have been an unlawful execution if they somehow executed someone OTHER than the person sentenced to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Law goons: why doesn't respondeat superior apply to local police departments? I understand it doesn't apply to state officials because of sovereign immunity, but I've heard that local governments do not enjoy the sovereign immunity of states. While it would clearly depend on the state, in some states they certainly do (which is why you need 1983 to punch through it). OCGA § 36-33-1 posted:(a) Pursuant to Article IX, Section II, Paragraph IX of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, the General Assembly, except as provided in this Code section and in Chapter 92 of this title, declares it is the public policy of the State of Georgia that there is no waiver of the sovereign immunity of municipal corporations of the state and such municipal corporations shall be immune from liability for damages. A municipal corporation shall not waive its immunity by the purchase of liability insurance, except as provided in Code Section 33-24-51 or 36-92-2, or unless the policy of insurance issued covers an occurrence for which the defense of sovereign immunity is available, and then only to the extent of the limits of such insurance policy. This subsection shall not be construed to affect any litigation pending on July 1, 1986. And in case that wasn't clear enough: OCGA §36-33-3 posted:A municipal corporation shall not be liable for the torts of policemen or other officers engaged in the discharge of the duties imposed on them by law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The only reason this is up for argument is that the government itself is also immune to lawsuits creating this ridiculous conundrum. There is almost always a remedy against a city or county government. It may be a confusing remedy requiring bureaucratic paperwork and brutally short deadlines, and you may fail and end up having a judge tell you that you are the victim of "sorry, poo poo happens". However, thats a political problem with the city or state that needs to be remedied with elections. We still shouldn't hold the city worker personally responsible (except for the exception I described earlier).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The only reason this is up for argument is that the government itself is also immune to lawsuits creating this ridiculous conundrum. TBH, while qualified immunity makes sense, sovereign immunity is some bullshit that we should absolutely get rid of. (Unfortunately, it'd require a constitutional amendment.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:While it would clearly depend on the state, in some states they certainly do (which is why you need 1983 to punch through it). This is a great answer and is fully responsive to my question, but I'd quibble that that's got to be different than sovereign immunity in the federal constitutional sense right? Georgia can exempt municipalities from George state tort liability (and hence the need for 1983), but its laws can't affect the meaning of sovereign immunity as a matter of federal law. Right? Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Rigel posted:There is almost always a remedy against a city or county government. It may be a confusing remedy requiring bureaucratic paperwork and brutally short deadlines, and you may fail and end up having a judge tell you that you are the victim of "sorry, poo poo happens". However, thats a political problem with the city or state that needs to be remedied with elections. We still shouldn't hold the city worker personally responsible (except for the exception I described earlier). What makes them more special than, say, doctors who have to carry malpractice insurance for when they gently caress up? Just being a government employee?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
I'm inclined to think fire fighter broke window because there was a fire next door and police officer shot black person because there was a robbery next door are different in kind and not in degree. Then again, if 1983 were used to sue fire fighters under those circumstances, I have trouble seeing why, from a legal standpoint, fixing it isn't Congress' prerogative rather than the courts' inventing an immunity rule. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Whether we should or not isn't relevant to the question of whether COs should be individually liable for carrying out what they believed to be a lawful execution of behalf of the state. They should. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
It’s pretty absurd to believe an individual CO should be expected to answer legal questions faster than and as accurately as the court system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
It’s pretty absurd to believe a random private citizen should eat thousands in repairs to their house rather than expect a public employee to bother knowing the law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 03:24
|
|