Lawsuit against former Utah trooper Lisa Steed going to trial

[radcen]

Lawsuit against former Utah trooper Lisa Steed going to trial

Lawsuit against former Utah trooper Lisa Steed going to trial | The Salt Lake Tribune

 

[ttwtt78640]

Lawsuit against former Utah trooper Lisa Steed going to trial

Lawsuit against former Utah trooper Lisa Steed going to trial | The Salt Lake Tribune

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]

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]

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]

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]

THe state dismissed her once they confirmed her lies and misdeeds.

 

[MaggieD]

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]

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.