• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit against former Utah trooper Lisa Steed going to trial

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,682
Reaction score
42,062
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

The ruling that the state is not a party to the lawsuit makes little sense in light of the following...

The Utah Attorney General's Office, however, must still defend Steed at the trial because the lawsuit covers her time as a state employee. Utah taxpayers could be liable for any awards to the plaintiffs.

Nobody should be entitled to a taxpayer funded civil defense or have their civil fines (judgements?) paid for by the taxpayers. She either was or was not acting on behalf of the state - the legal nonsense that the state is not being sued yet must still both pay for her defense and (help?) pay for her fine (if found guilty) makes no sense.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The ruling that the state is not a party to the lawsuit makes little sense in light of the following...

Nobody should be entitled to a taxpayer funded civil defense or have their civil fines (judgements?) paid for by the taxpayers. She either was or was not acting on behalf of the state - the legal nonsense that the state is not being sued yet must still both pay for her defense and (help?) pay for her fine (if found guilty) makes no sense.

Done all the time. When someone is acting within their duties and responsibilities for their employer, the employer is responsible for their behavior. The legal machinations around that in this case are admittedly silly, but taxpayers should definitely be on the hook. They SHOULD have liability insurance for this kind of situation. If the don't have it now, they will shortly.

I wish they could find a way to charge her with a crime. Hopefully they can. It's likely this horrible person, a sociopath probably, ruined lives in her wake.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The ruling that the state is not a party to the lawsuit makes little sense in light of the following...

Nobody should be entitled to a taxpayer funded civil defense or have their civil fines (judgements?) paid for by the taxpayers. She either was or was not acting on behalf of the state - the legal nonsense that the state is not being sued yet must still both pay for her defense and (help?) pay for her fine (if found guilty) makes no sense.
When you are employed by the people, and do the people's work in the people's name, then the people absolutely should be on the hook for any and all civil liability. If the people don't like the consequences of what is being done in their name, then the people need to get together and change what is being done.

People being taxpayers, I mean.

As far as the state not being a party, that kind of baffles me. I lean to thinking how can it not be? It does seem kind of a specious separation.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,682
Reaction score
42,062
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Done all the time. When someone is acting within their duties and responsibilities for their employer, the employer is responsible for their behavior. The legal machinations around that in this case are admittedly silly, but taxpayers should definitely be on the hook. They SHOULD have liability insurance for this kind of situation. If the don't have it now, they will shortly.

I wish they could find a way to charge her with a crime. Hopefully they can. It's likely this horrible person, a sociopath probably, ruined lives in her wake.

Taxpayers should not be anywhere near equally responsible compared to PD management (including the governor, county executive or mayor), the police union or those that are paid for oversight. We have far too many being paid far too much to allow them to shift their responsibility to we the sheeple.

At a minimum, all of those public servants deemed also responsible should be fired and/or have their position placed up for special election. In this case it seems that many knew of her "questionable" tactics yet did nothing to correct the situation until many more became victims of the scam. When do those accomplices get any more of a penalty than a mere taxpayer who had no idea what was going on?

If the AG must defend her (illegal) acts then I say that the AG must also prosecute her and all that helped her perform those (illegal) acts. The state had no problem using its power to jail/fine folks and impound their vehicles based only on her word.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,891
Reaction score
57,707
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
THe state dismissed her once they confirmed her lies and misdeeds.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Taxpayers should not be anywhere near equally responsible compared to PD management (including the governor, county executive or mayor), the police union or those that are paid for oversight. We have far too many being paid far too much to allow them to shift their responsibility to we the sheeple.

At a minimum, all of those public servants deemed also responsible should be fired and/or have their position placed up for special election. In this case it seems that many knew of her "questionable" tactics yet did nothing to correct the situation until many more became victims of the scam. When do those accomplices get any more of a penalty than a mere taxpayer who had no idea what was going on?

If the AG must defend her (illegal) acts then I say that the AG must also prosecute her and all that helped her perform those (illegal) acts. The state had no problem using its power to jail/fine folks and impound their vehicles based only on her word.

I couldn't agree with you more. Charge the lot of them. Until we are willing to DO that, absolutely nothing will change. Taxpayers in Utah should be wild.

Whatever anyone thinks about the protests against cops, it's pretty clear they are absolutely HORRIBLE at oversight. Time to bring in the heavy-duty brooms.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Taxpayers should not be anywhere near equally responsible compared to PD management (including the governor, county executive or mayor), the police union or those that are paid for oversight. We have far too many being paid far too much to allow them to shift their responsibility to we the sheeple.

At a minimum, all of those public servants deemed also responsible should be fired and/or have their position placed up for special election. In this case it seems that many knew of her "questionable" tactics yet did nothing to correct the situation until many more became victims of the scam. When do those accomplices get any more of a penalty than a mere taxpayer who had no idea what was going on?

If the AG must defend her (illegal) acts then I say that the AG must also prosecute her and all that helped her perform those (illegal) acts. The state had no problem using its power to jail/fine folks and impound their vehicles based only on her word.
I am with you on this point. The others who knew should be held accountable, too. They are violating the public trust as much as the original offending officer.

In fact, this is a good example of what I mean when I say in other threads about illegal police activity getting swept under the rug. That's precisely what her supervisors tried to do here. The concern wasn't about upholding the law, the concern was about making sure she/they didn't get caught.
 
Top Bottom