HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am not a lawyer, but i ...

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:20 PM

I am not a lawyer, but i have watched all the Matlock reruns

Tell me why this wouldn't work. It was reported that New York pays from 200 million to 300 million a year in court judgments for excessive force cases etc. Why when cases are filed shouldn't the Cop unions or Federations as Minny. is called. be named as co defendant. Citing the culture they have created and encourage. I say that being as strong a union man as there is.

15 replies, 1301 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am not a lawyer, but i have watched all the Matlock reruns (Original post)
gibraltar72 Jun 2020 OP
The Magistrate Jun 2020 #1
alwaysinasnit Jun 2020 #2
gibraltar72 Jun 2020 #4
crickets Jun 2020 #12
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2020 #3
StarfishSaver Jun 2020 #6
crickets Jun 2020 #13
5X Jun 2020 #5
whistler162 Jun 2020 #11
sop Jun 2020 #7
underpants Jun 2020 #8
Hoyt Jun 2020 #9
sop Jun 2020 #10
safeinOhio Jun 2020 #14
Celerity Jun 2020 #15

Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:23 PM

1. Settlements Paid, Sir, Should Be Deducted From Pension Funds

A mild means of encouraging police to police themselves....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:24 PM

2. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:26 PM

4. I love that idea.

I think putting the onus on the the union to defend in court. And have potential penalties would change the culture sooner than anything i can think of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:42 PM

12. Excellent idea. Throw in the legal fees too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:25 PM

3. Because (1) The policies of the federation are not,

in the legal sense, the direct or proximate cause of a particular act of police misconduct, and (2) the federation is not the employer of the police officers and therefore is not liable for their actions under so-called master-servant principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:28 PM

6. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:52 PM

13. Drat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:27 PM

5. Shoulda watched Perry Mason. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 5X (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:36 PM

11. Nah... needed to stay at a Holiday Inn

Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2020, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:29 PM

7. The Master-Servant rule.

"The master-servant rule is a legal guideline stating that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees. The rule applies to any actions an employee undertakes while in the service of an employer that is within the scope of their duties for that employer. Another way of describing the master-servant rule is that the master (employer) is vicariously liable for the torts and misdeeds of their servant (employee). This concept may also be called 'the principle of respondeat superior' or 'let the master answer.'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:30 PM

8. We want Matlock!

?resize=300%2C225

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:32 PM

9. Honestly, there needs to be better vetting of new recruits, periodic assessments after hiring,

sanctions against officers who witness wrong-doing but say nothing, mandatory body cameras, etc.

To be fair, there are going to be times where police personnel are going to have to shoot. I'd hate to see them worrying about losing their pension at that moment, although I think it does happen sometimes.

We need a better "class" of police, maybe coming more from a social services background, than military background would help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 07:35 PM

10. Agreed. It begins with hiring a different kind of police officer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 08:16 PM

14. Vote for those that will clean it up.

Be it a sheriff or a mayor, that person holds responsibility for the cops action. If they don't clean house, kick em out. They get to control our tax dollars, so they must pay the price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2020, 08:21 PM

15. Break up the murder-culture-producing copper unions via the RICO Act. crush those fuckers to dust

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread