(04-29-2015 11:27 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  With all due respect, I think you are being arbitrary. To be fair, it should be compared to other cities and see how it rates. Also, a settlement isn't an admission of culpability, either fortunately or unfortunately. We can't really say all those settlements had merit in this discussion, or if some were just payments to go away because it was cheaper.

Again, I'm not defending their actions, if wrong. I'm just saying that citing the settlement amount is a bad measurement.

It seems high to me, and I don't see how other cities doing as bad or worse than this makes anything any better. If anything, that would prove it's even more systemic. I don't see why the people of Baltimore should stop and say, "Well, Philadelphia is paying millions in settlements too so that makes it okay for us." No, that means Philadelphia has serious problems on its hands too.

As for whether these are nuisance value cases, the average suggests they're not. Nuisance cases might go for $5k, not $55k. And if a few of them were nuisance cases, that means the rest of them were collectively even higher.

And again, these are the types of cases that generally settle for less than they're worth and often aren't even brought because the victims are suspected criminals and juries generally aren't sympathetic to them (and, they are sympathetic to cops). I've turned away perfectly good cases as an injury lawyer for this reason myself. So the settlement amounts are likely underinflated.

(04-29-2015 11:27 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  They have an obligation to be the check and balance on the police force. I'd be comfortable assuming more cases weren't pursued out of "professional courtesy" than anything else.

Unfortunately the prosecutors work hand in hand on a daily basis with the police they're supposed to be "checking." I'm not saying I have the answers but that's a legitimate flaw in our system. Plus juries like them. So cops are rarely prosecuted.

They have an obligation to not waste resources pursuing cases they likely won't win. If they take a case to verdict and lose, congratulations, you've just thrown away tens of thousands of dollars.

(04-29-2015 11:27 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Not a fair comparison. That force was handled poorly. The choice isn't poorly used force or no force. Baltimore should have been more forceful to protect their citizens and assets from criminals.

Again, if this is a systemic problem, shouldn't those who run the system be culpable? In Baltimore, the "system" has been run for many years by Democrats. Wouldn't that indicate their ideals/goals are broken?

How much more forceful? There have been 200+ arrests and they have a curfew in effect. Maybe finding a happy medium between Baltimore and Ferguson? I guess so but that's easy to say. It could get bloody and like some of the protesters are saying, broken windows are better than broken bones.

Almost all large cities are run by Democrats, so every time there's an urban riot you're going to blame Democrats.

I do think the Democrats who run the cities should reform the PDs. The problem is the Republicans would just be worse. Bill deBlasio is instituting some hard reforms in NYC and last year NYC had the lowest murder rate since 1963, and in February there was a record 10 days without a murder.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...rders-and/

(04-29-2015 11:21 AM)calvin12 Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 03:39 PM)BobL Wrote:  My lord how many incidents have there been just in the last few months?

and how many police/civilian contacts have happened in that same time period that were not "incidents". Almost all of them.

one incident is one too many..

Very interesting Through the Wormhole last night...very timely and relevant.

http://www.wsj.com/video/are-we-all-bigo...A1186.html

(04-30-2015 10:35 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:27 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  With all due respect, I think you are being arbitrary. To be fair, it should be compared to other cities and see how it rates. Also, a settlement isn't an admission of culpability, either fortunately or unfortunately. We can't really say all those settlements had merit in this discussion, or if some were just payments to go away because it was cheaper.

Again, I'm not defending their actions, if wrong. I'm just saying that citing the settlement amount is a bad measurement.

It seems high to me, and I don't see how other cities doing as bad or worse than this makes anything any better. If anything, that would prove it's even more systemic. I don't see why the people of Baltimore should stop and say, "Well, Philadelphia is paying millions in settlements too so that makes it okay for us." No, that means Philadelphia has serious problems on its hands too.

As for whether these are nuisance value cases, the average suggests they're not. Nuisance cases might go for $5k, not $55k. And if a few of them were nuisance cases, that means the rest of them were collectively even higher.

And again, these are the types of cases that generally settle for less than they're worth and often aren't even brought because the victims are suspected criminals and juries generally aren't sympathetic to them (and, they are sympathetic to cops). I've turned away perfectly good cases as an injury lawyer for this reason myself. So the settlement amounts are likely underinflated.

(04-29-2015 11:27 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  They have an obligation to be the check and balance on the police force. I'd be comfortable assuming more cases weren't pursued out of "professional courtesy" than anything else.

Unfortunately the prosecutors work hand in hand on a daily basis with the police they're supposed to be "checking." I'm not saying I have the answers but that's a legitimate flaw in our system. Plus juries like them. So cops are rarely prosecuted.

They have an obligation to not waste resources pursuing cases they likely won't win. If they take a case to verdict and lose, congratulations, you've just thrown away tens of thousands of dollars.

(04-29-2015 11:27 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Not a fair comparison. That force was handled poorly. The choice isn't poorly used force or no force. Baltimore should have been more forceful to protect their citizens and assets from criminals.

Again, if this is a systemic problem, shouldn't those who run the system be culpable? In Baltimore, the "system" has been run for many years by Democrats. Wouldn't that indicate their ideals/goals are broken?

How much more forceful? There have been 200+ arrests and they have a curfew in effect. Maybe finding a happy medium between Baltimore and Ferguson? I guess so but that's easy to say. It could get bloody and like some of the protesters are saying, broken windows are better than broken bones.

Almost all large cities are run by Democrats, so every time there's an urban riot you're going to blame Democrats.

I do think the Democrats who run the cities should reform the PDs. The problem is the Republicans would just be worse. Bill deBlasio is instituting some hard reforms in NYC and last year NYC had the lowest murder rate since 1963, and in February there was a record 10 days without a murder.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...rders-and/

The dems have been running these cities for decades and you state the Republicans would be worse? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Maybe you meant to say the dems have not had enough time and they need another 50 years or 75 years to implement change.

(04-30-2015 01:13 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  The dems have been running these cities for decades and you state the Republicans would be worse? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Maybe you meant to say the dems have not had enough time and they need another 50 years or 75 years to implement change.

That's the definition alright, but what is being done over and over is overlooking the issue of police brutality, and some bullheaded "law and order" Republican mayor is just going to make things worse, not better. Unless that Republican is Rand Paul or something.

(04-30-2015 03:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:13 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  The dems have been running these cities for decades and you state the Republicans would be worse? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Maybe you meant to say the dems have not had enough time and they need another 50 years or 75 years to implement change.

That's the definition alright, but what is being done over and over is overlooking the issue of police brutality, and some bullheaded "law and order" Republican mayor is just going to make things worse, not better. Unless that Republican is Rand Paul or something.

Why do the dems brutalize their people? They have held power for DEACDES. Power for decades, brutalizing their people for decades and the Repubs are worse? INSANITY lives.

(04-30-2015 10:35 AM)Max Power Wrote:  It seems high to me, and I don't see how other cities doing as bad or worse than this makes anything any better. If anything, that would prove it's even more systemic. I don't see why the people of Baltimore should stop and say, "Well, Philadelphia is paying millions in settlements too so that makes it okay for us." No, that means Philadelphia has serious problems on its hands too.

As for whether these are nuisance value cases, the average suggests they're not. Nuisance cases might go for $5k, not $55k. And if a few of them were nuisance cases, that means the rest of them were collectively even higher.

And again, these are the types of cases that generally settle for less than they're worth and often aren't even brought because the victims are suspected criminals and juries generally aren't sympathetic to them (and, they are sympathetic to cops). I've turned away perfectly good cases as an injury lawyer for this reason myself. So the settlement amounts are likely underinflated.

I'm going to say that without context and perspective, seizing upon that number is meaningless. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think $1 in settlement payouts is too much. But, it is unrealistic to expect there not to be some degree of bad apples in such a large system. So, what is the deplorable, but realist acceptable amount? I don't know.

Max Power Wrote:Unfortunately the prosecutors work hand in hand on a daily basis with the police they're supposed to be "checking." I'm not saying I have the answers but that's a legitimate flaw in our system. Plus juries like them. So cops are rarely prosecuted.

They have an obligation to not waste resources pursuing cases they likely won't win. If they take a case to verdict and lose, congratulations, you've just thrown away tens of thousands of dollars.

Except that you have to believe in the concept of Internal Affairs investigation officers. And, if you never prosecute a cop, you are derelict in your duties as a prosecutor. Using your logic, there is no way to control a police force.

Max Power Wrote:How much more forceful? There have been 200+ arrests and they have a curfew in effect. Maybe finding a happy medium between Baltimore and Ferguson? I guess so but that's easy to say. It could get bloody and like some of the protesters are saying, broken windows are better than broken bones.

Having the force on the street in Ferguson wasn't the mistake. Being cavalier about it was the issue.

Broken windows are fine unless it is your window and your livelihood.

Max Power Wrote:Almost all large cities are run by Democrats, so every time there's an urban riot you're going to blame Democrats.

I do think the Democrats who run the cities should reform the PDs. The problem is the Republicans would just be worse. Bill deBlasio is instituting some hard reforms in NYC and last year NYC had the lowest murder rate since 1963, and in February there was a record 10 days without a murder.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...rders-and/

Well, if the Democrats run the city, and have for forty years, and if the riots are a result of police action, which is controlled by those same Democrats, then, yes, they are culpable. They certainly haven't made things any better.

But, the Republicans would be worse. Sure.

Could the story be changing? Could FACTS make a difference.

After what came out today, this is likely another instance of police officers either being willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.

In police training, when officers are educated on how to transport suspects in a police van, not a squad car which is a different sort of vehicle and has different rules, you are taught that even if a suspect is handcuffed, they must be secured in the back of the van so that they are unable to move around. This not only protects the suspect from possible injury should the van become involved in a traffic collision or there is a sudden, unexpected maneuver, such as a sudden acceleration, braking, or turn, but also ensures the protection of other suspects in the back of the van, and the officers themselves, should the suspect become violent.

Freddie Gray was handcuffed and was not restrained in the back of the van. Every officer who is, or has been, trained to utilize a police van knows that's a big no-no for several reasons.