The case for a well-funded organization for wrongful death lawsuits against cops who kill.

[MineralMan]

It happens over and over again. A cop wrongfully shoots someone, usually someone of color, and avoids prosecution after a long investigation. District attorneys are loathe to file criminal cases against such police officers. They have to work with the police in other sorts of criminal activity and run for office from time to time. Grand juries hear what prosecutors want them to hear, and the prosecutors get enormous pressure not to try cops for shooting people.

In Minnesota, a small community embedded in a larger city and that contracts with another similar small city for law enforcement had one of those wrongful shootings happen recently. Philando Castile was shot in a clear abuse of authority. Will a criminal case be brought against the cop who shot him? Possibly, but more unlikely than likely. There will be a long investigation and maybe a grand jury, but odds are that this cop will skate. So, what are people to do.

My suggestion is this: Fund a national organization that brings civil wrongful death suits in such cases. Fund it extremely well. It would hire the very best civil attorneys and staff members they can find. Star-quality attorneys. Pay them handsomely and turn them loose on the cities and other jurisdictions where this stuff happens. Don't rely on local attorneys working on a contingency basis.

Here's why to take this approach: In the recent Minnesota case, the two cities involved are small, with small budgets. Falcon Heights, where the shooting took place, can't even afford its own police department. It contracts with another little embedded community, Lauderdale, to provide law enforcement services. Lauderdale, too, is small and has a small total budget.

Sue them both for the wrongful death. Put the very best legal experts on the job. Bankrupt those cities. Do the same every time someone is wrongfully killed by police, and in every place it occurs. Make it so costly not to properly train and discipline police departments that they are forced to change how they operate. Make wrongful shootings a matter of life and death for the jurisdictions in which they occur.

This won't provide real justice for the victims or their families. The goal of this program would be to change the way cities, counties and other jurisdictions think about law enforcement. It would make them rightfully fearful of allowing racism, profiling, and other bigotry to rule the law enforcement community.

Treat these jurisdictions like corporations and slam them with multi-billion dollar judgments. Bankrupt them. Compensate the victims' families, of course, but destroy the financial viability of those cities and other jurisdictions that don't properly control their police forces. Make it hurt and hurt badly. Demonstrate that lax oversight of policing can lead to economic disaster. Make it crystal clear.

This needs to be a national organization, large enough to staff its legal team with the very best, most highly paid civil law experts. It needs to be focused on this single aspect of civil law. It needs legal expertise that cannot be matched, even by the largest cities. It needs the best, brightest and most dedicated legal experts on its side.

Take these cities, counties and other jurisdictions to court and punish them for not doing their job of controlling the law enforcement community. Force the subject to be the keynote topic at conventions of mayors, county managers and other people who run those jurisdictions. Make them understand the risks they run when they do not control their law enforcement agencies.

It will take force to change the focus of these local governments. Money is the force. Make every wrongful police shooting a financial disaster for the local government where it occurs. They'll get the picture. They'll understand, and pass that understanding along by clamping down on racist, bigoted law enforcement agencies. They'll have no choice.

[Hoyt]

1. +10000. And even in cases lacking strong evidence, pressure to fire is good too.

[MineralMan]

2. Real change is going to require making it impossible not

to make changes. Money is the tool that is the most effective against government.

[arendt]

3. No offense. Interesting idea, but...

when you say "bankrupt them", are you not taking the same angle as corporate SLAPP lawsuits?

I would be fine with getting good lawyers for survivors of victims. That is a good idea.

But, basically beating someone by having more money? Isn't that what the 99% hate?

Just asking.

[unblock]

4. i applaud that you're trying to come up with a solution

but i think we need to be more direct and proactive.

suing towns after the fact and trying to bankrupt them at a time when we want them to spend *more* on more sensible police training doesn't seem to me like a very effective plan. moreover, civil suits can take years to run their course. finally, this will force towns to cut back in other areas as well. if a town has one of these horrible incidents, i'm not sure how cutting library funding and road repair and so on will help the situation.

if i'm missing the point and it's really all about deterrence for other towns *before* a tragedy happens, unfortunately i think this won't be particularly effective either. many communities will simply "hope it never happens here" as they no doubt do already. when faced with the real cost of extra training against what they figure is a low-probability catastrophe, most people will overweight the real cost that's in front of them. remember that humans are terrible at evaluating risk, particularly low probability risk.

i'm thinking more of a national policy, i'm no expert, but i'll throw out a few ideas that may be stupid but maybe others can improve on them:
- require policy to volunteer in the communities they patrol, something like the way lawyers are required to do pro bono work.
- stop training police to empty their guns into center mass. i get that this is the most effective way to "neutralize a threat", but it's only appropriate in certain limited situations. at minimum, you have to be absolutely certain you're right, you have to be absolutely certain there's no need for more bullets after (e.g., no second threat) you have to be absolutely certain that nothing short of death is appropriate, etc.
- don't over train with target shooting. pulling out your gun and shooting should be a last resort, not something where muscle memory takes over.
- train police better in diffusing situations
- train police better in trying to arrest someone safely rather than immediately (e.g., be patient and wait for backup)
- train police in doing more from positions of safety, e.g., i'm not sure all traffic stops really require the police leave their car.
- you kill someone on the job, you lose your job unless clear evidence exonerates you. that's encourage police to wear body cameras.

[Travis_0004]

5. How do you have a traffic stop without leaving the car?

[unblock]

7. A computer check on the tag tells you much

And you can communicate via cell phone in many cases. So at least if it's just about a tail light or running a red light or speeding, it can all be done from a distance.

Of course, a sobriety test would require leaving the car as would an outstanding warrant, but we could at least reduce the number of situations.

[Travis_0004]

9. I don't think it works in most cases

In some ways, it would be nice if the DMV has an email address you can give them. If a cop sees a burned out taillight, it would be nice if he could key it in his computer, and the DMV generates an email.

But in most other cases, the cop is going to need to walk up to the car. If you are speeding, or running a red light, the cop needs your license, and needs to hand you a ticket.

[unblock]

10. i think technology can soon make those steps unnecessary

handing you a ticket? that can be done by email. it's already done without a traffic stop by automated systems that just snap a pic of you as you drive by too fast or through a red light.

the license is just for identification. this could be done visually easily in most cases once the tag is run, it could show the officer pictures of the authorized drivers. otherwise facial recognition software might work. alternatively, drivers could be required to display their license in the window where it could be scanned.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. "Authorized drivers"?

Other than for rental cars, I'm not aware of there being any such things for vehicles.

The "authorized drivers" for my car is whomever I may decide to loan it to or let drive it at any particular time.

And displaying a license in the window? No thanks, I like to keep my license on my person, not in my car.

[unblock]

18. i'm thinking when i register a car, i can give the dmv my license and my wife's license

so that we're known drivers of the vehicle. if they can easily identify us as the driver, there's no need for them to get out of the car for a routine traffic stop.

nothing's keeping me from letting a friend drive, it only means that the police wouldn't be able to identify the driver so easily. that may mean they have to get out of their car after all, but at least it would address the 98% of the time when the driver is actually the owner (or a family member).

[Travis_0004]

22. Quite a few people do not have email.

[unblock]

25. Snail mail then

In any event, I'm not saying they never need to leave their patrol car. The point is just to reduce the number of times they feel at risk

[Travis_0004]

26. Assuming the address is correct in the DMV

Yes, it should be incorrect, but probably isn't. So the cops mail them, and poorer people who are more likely to move more often are more likely to have outdated addresses. Then they don't respond to the ticket that they never received (or a ticket gets lost in the mail), and now there is a warrant out for their arrest.

[unblock]

30. You're required to notify the dmv when you change your address

[Travis_0004]

31. I agree,

but people forget. Under your system, a cop issues a ticket, they never get it, and now there is a warrant for their arrest. It seems like walking 10 feet to hand their ticket, would make more sense.

[unblock]

32. The whole point is to reduce the number of times they have to do that

Just walking 10 feet... You make it sound as if there's no danger involved in that.

Ok, they don't need to go straight to an arrest warrant for a failure to respond. A phone call to confirm address or receipt might be a first step. Then again, at some point and arrest warrant us appropriate. At this point they have the original infraction plus either failure to respond or failure to notify change of address

[MineralMan]

14. For things like a light that is out,

sending a notice to the registered owner of the vehicle by mail would do the trick, I think.

That could be automated, without any real problem. It would be even easier if license plates included an RFID chip that would respond to a police query. If all of the cars I see with a taillight out got such notifications, that would be a nice safety thing, really. Police rarely pull someone over for that, unless they have some other reason, good or bad, to pull the driver over.

Of course, RFID chips in license plates would be objected to by many people, no doubt, since they would provide a means of tracking vehicles. But license plate cameras are doing that already in many places.

Maybe, instead, the car could have RFID that returned the VIN for that vehicle. That would lead to the recovery of a lot of stolen cars, I think. Where I live, most stolen cars just get another license plate installed and they get driven everywhere. In my part of Minnesota, most stolen cars get Wisconsin plates, which are easily stolen just across the border.

The police are not watching closely for stolen cars. There's no ticket revenue in that, really, and pulling over stolen cars is more than a little dangerous. In most of the smaller cities, pullovers are generally a revenue-enhancement measure, so police are encouraged to stop people where a ticket will lead to a nice big fine.

[irisblue]

19. wouldn't RFID chips allow tracking of cars at all times?

Like your cell phone does if you don't turn off the GPS?

[MineralMan]

23. Well, it could. RFID is pretty much a short distance

recognition technology. It only responds when queried by an RFID reader nearby. So, no, your car couldn't be tracked easily wherever it goes. On the other hand, RFID readers could be located at intersections or wherever to read the IDs of cars that passed by. That's how the current license plate readers are used. Most major metro areas have those, and do use them.

The thing is that RFID technology is already in use in the automobile industry. Odds are that if you have a new car, it has an RFID tag, that was installed to track it during manufacturing and shipping. It's a commonplace in the auto industry. Also, if your car doesn't require you to insert a key to start or unlock the car, your key is an RFID-equipped device.

If you drive a GM car with On-Star, it's trackable via GPS, as well. RFID tags for cars are also used by parking facilities, rental car companies, and even car washes, to identify cars and eliminate workers that were needed to identify cars that were authorized to use the facilities.

The last car I rented, for example, at LAX, was RFID equipped. I didn't have to show anything when I exited the rental lot or when I returned the car. I just went out, got in the car and drove out. It's RFID was detected and the barrier arm went up. When I returned, the same thing happened and I didn't have to interact with anyone to drop the car off. A little box asked me if I wanted to use the credit card I provided when I rented the car, and then printed out a receipt for me. I parked the car and got on the shuttle box without ever seeing another person.

It's a small step to require all cars to have an RFID chip with the VIN recorded. I expect that to happen soon.

Technology. It's a reality, like it or not.

[MineralMan]

6. Better and more training is important.

It's also widely recognized as being needed. And yet, it is not being done. What I'm talking about is a few examples made that will encourage such things. What we are doing isn't working. We need to take a different approach to community policing that will encourage jurisdictions to take actions that are needed.

All of your training suggestions are excellent, but so far there's little reason for jurisdictions to implement such training. They need a bit of a push to do so. Fear is a wonderful thing in convincing people to do stuff.

Right now, it's not working. Prosecutions are not happening, even in egregious cases. We need to do better. We need some evidence that there will be a penalty for not getting law enforcement under control. Right now, there is no penalty.

[MineralMan]

8. Some background on recent wrongful death suits against police

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moneytips/largest-legal-settlements_b_8122202.html

New York City recently settled a wrongful-death claim with the family of Eric Garner for $5.9 million almost a year to the day after Garner died from the use of a chokehold by an NYPD police officer. The 43-year old Garner was being taken into custody for selling untaxed cigarettes and was unarmed at the time of his death. Garner’s family filed a notice that they intended to pursue a $75 million lawsuit against the city, prompting the eventual $5.9 million settlement.

Unfortunately, large legal settlements against police officers and departments are not uncommon, and occurring more with the recent rise in tensions between police departments and the public. According to The Wall Street Journal, the ten U.S. cities with the largest police departments paid out a total of $248.7 million in settlements and court judgments in 2014. That represents almost 50% more than the $168.3 million paid out in 2010. Over that five-year period, those ten departments paid out $1.02 billion in settlements over police misconduct.

In this article, you will learn that most of these suits end up being settled out of court for a fraction of the amount sued for. My recommendation would be not to settle in any such case, but force it to a jury trial in court. That would make it far more public and would likely lead to larger judgments.

The key is legal expertise, really. With very experienced, talented attorneys on the plaintiff's side, such settlements would not be the answer. Instead, their abilities would force the jurisdictions to either offer much, much larger settlements or to try the case in court.

[treestar]

11. They are tort cases on contingency fee

So it may not be that much needed to fund them, maybe for costs.

Expert witnesses on the police could cost money.

A good idea. This kind of lawsuit can have a great effect. The police departments, not wanting to be sued, could change their policies.

There probably are already lawyers who specialize in this. LAPD had a lawyer who went after them regularly I think.

[unblock]

12. the funding would be to help make a settlement acceptable to the lawyers

the goal should *not* be exclusively to bankrupt them, but to induce positive change.

if the only incentive for the lawyers is to maximize their own profit, then you'd get some results where you bankrupt the town instead of making them change.

some funding would help so the lawyers could get paid to accept a settlement where they don't get as much profit as they might have, but they leave the town with the funds to effect positive change.

[treestar]

13. the beauty of contingency fees are

no upfront costs to the plaintiff. And the lawyer has no incentive to take on a bad case.

[unblock]

15. but the downside is that the depth of the defendant's pockets matter

i don't think it works to have lawyers only go after the juicy targets.

[treestar]

17. we're only talking about the local government - police department

that is a deep pocket, true, but that is a good thing in that they have assets to protect. And it is taxpayer money, so that could lead to pressure to train them differently and get them out of the us vs. them culture they appear they have. If they don't charge the cops with crimes, the wrongful death suits are the most effective way to change them.

[unblock]

20. but how are the lawyers incentivized to accept them charging cops with crimes?

i'm thinking the lawyers could be paid out of the fund to accept a settlement where the police chief resigns, the officer in question is fired and charges brought, and better training and so on is agreed to, etc.

no need to bankrupt the town if they agree to all the positive changes we are trying to get. but then the lawyers need to get paid.

[treestar]

33. on a contingency fee, if it is a winnable case

Lawyer gets paid nothing if they lose and a percentage if they win. So they have no reason to take frivolous cases (contrary to media tort reform stuff we see). If the cop was really in the wrong, it is a good case. The plaintiff has to have some kind of damage, like injury - death is wrongful death for the survivors, they can sue for say the lost wages is they are spouse/children, for example.

[unblock]

34. i know the theory, but in practice there are problems

first, if the defendant doesn't have deep pockets, contingency fee lawyers have an incentive to ignore the case. a fund could help offset that incentive.

second, if the defendant does have deep pockets, contingency fee lawyers have an incentive to get the maximum payout. if the goal is profit, that's all well and good. but if the goal is social change, then it deters contingency fee lawyers for settling for a smaller payout but with the defendant agreeing to do all the things you want. again, a fund could help offset that incentive.

[vkkv]

21. HELL YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. To other posters in this thread: before high tech gadgetry get rid of ticket quotas.

Devise other means to measure law enforcement activity than ticket quotas.

Get rid of civil forfeiture. [font color="purple"]Fundamentally it is ass-backwards to make police forces into revenue agents and to make police forces depend on revenue generation for funding.[/font]

But, of course, this is the result of Republican strangulation of government services while at the same time out of the other side of their mouth they are piously saying platitudes about "respect for law and order" and "support our police".

Further, demand accountability from leadership on down, but heaviest on the leadership. Fire chiefs and deputy chiefs if people die for the wrong reasons (police die or black people die or anybody dies from lack of training or greed or whatever).

Use existing tech well: body cams & car cams (front, back, and wide angle) on all the time on duty, no ability to switch off. A malfunctioning body cam means return to station to get fitted with a functioning one just like a radio malfunction or vehicle failure. With regard to privacy issues, independent bodies can review footage for release whenever it is requested (like after incidents) so that sensitivity can be shown (child custody, domestic disturbances, etc.).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. To MineralMan: Your suggestion is a good one. Use civil means when civic means fail. . . nt

[matt819]

28. Excellent idea

Small problem of money, of course. While RW billionaires will fund all sorts of treasonous activites, it seems that LW billionaires a) are fewer in number and b) for some reason unwilling to be this proactive and visible. I doubt law firms or law schools would risk setting up programs akin to the Innocence project for death row exonerations. I think it's a great idea, and you've it on all the reasons why. But I can't see how it would come to be. But, hey, it's easy to be critical.

[Ligyron]

29. I think this is a GREAT idea! Kick and rec

This will be more effective than what we might otherwise expect from the criminal justice system. I wish there was some way to stop local police forces, or even police departments in general, from "investigating" their own lethal force cases. But, I digress.

I'm all for this and would chip in a couple hundred but we're going to need a lot more than that, obviously. We need some progressive people who are quite wealthy. Once this got rolling, perhaps the settlements alone could cover a chunk of the costs after the victim's family was paid.

OK, who is going to initiate this? where do we take this next?

Too bad there aren't more (or even any for all I know) black billionaires in the country.