Police officer shoots at family dog in living room and hits 9 year old girl.

[Lursa]

Well according to the article the child was released the same day, so it doesnt look like any major damage was done to her.

If she ends up blind in one eye, that's pretty major damage.

Just IMO.

 

[Keridan]

I disagree with that (bolded above) unless that is accomplished only by reducing the pay of those responsible for selecting, training and evaluating that police officer. To simply consider the taxpayers in general to be at fault is moronic and reduces any chance that something similar will not happen with that officer's replacement.

I understand why you feel that way. However, I have to disagree. If a company had sent this guy out, they would be liable for a settlement based on his actions. Theoretically, the company has insurance it comes out of. Unfortunately, in this case the tax payers are the insurance, but that girl may be blind in one eye and forever scared of cops and more.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Holy crap!!

The girl was right behind the dog and he shot anyway!!

To be fair, the barking was probably annoying.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I understand why you feel that way. However, I have to disagree. If a company had sent this guy out, they would be liable for a settlement based on his actions. Theoretically, the company has insurance it comes out of. Unfortunately, in this case the tax payers are the insurance, but that girl may be blind in one eye and forever scared of cops and more.

The public has a choice whether to patronize a company which has employees who shot or otherwise harmed folks. That choice is not offered to folks forced to pay taxes to their government. In this case the taxpayers are insuring that police officials are not held responsible for the actions of police officers hand-picked by themselves and those police officials are personally immune from lawsuits. The taxpayers did not dispatch or arm officer "shoot if upset by a dog" into that family's home - a police official did so with the blessing of other police officials who are immune from wrongful death lawsuits. The government is often referred to as having deep pockets which is BS - they simply have unlimited access to many pockets.

 

[Bodi]

A police officer entered the living room of a family's home when a group of police were responding to a domestic dispute. The family dog, a small terrier, slipped out of someone's grip (it was surrounded by the family's 3 children) and started yapping very aggressively at the police officer. He drew his gun and discharged several rounds in the general direction of the dog. He missed the dog and one of the bullets ricocheted off the concrete and lodged into the forehead of one the surrounding children, a 9 year old girl who was standing directly behind the dog. Fragments also lodged in her eye and she ran from the room screaming. The police have declined to press charges against the girl. The police officer who discharged the firearm has been fired.

fired?

FIRED?


That MOTHER ****ER should be put to death... literally.


What a cowardly **** of a person... that was so disgusting I can barely stand it.

 

[Bodi]

Cop was scared of a small terrier?

Lots of cops are absolute ******s... ****ing pieces of **** that should never be around a gun... much less any power.

 

[Bodi]

Not really; there has been no information on whether the child will ever see out of that eye again. Some things are beyond the "Oops! Do over!" frame of mind. How this individual was able to secure both a badge and a gun should be an "OMG!!" moment for all of us.

Right... cop should be shot in his eye.... and then imprisoned for life. He is a ****ing loser.

 

[Bodi]

Police officer did what he is trained to do.

Think about it.

Dumb **** post

 

[Keridan]

The public has a choice whether to patronize a company which has employees who shot or otherwise harmed folks. That choice is not offered to folks forced to pay taxes to their government. In this case the taxpayers are insuring that police officials are not held responsible for the actions of police officers hand-picked by themselves and those police officials are personally immune from lawsuits. The taxpayers did not dispatch or arm officer "shoot if upset by a dog" into that family's home - a police official did so with the blessing of other police officials who are immune from wrongful death lawsuits. The government is often referred to as having deep pockets which is BS - they simply have unlimited access to many pockets.

I appreciate the polite discussion, but I don't think we are going to change each others' minds. It's getting into the nuance of application of law. Please note that I agree it is unfair getting the money from innocent tax payers. I only disagree on the liability issue.

 

[cabse5]

The dog likely failed to immediately obey his lawful commands - time to start blasting away (in self defense) for sure.

I figured Libertarians have an inner desire to prosecute cops.

 

[cabse5]

I appreciate the polite discussion, but I don't think we are going to change each others' minds. It's getting into the nuance of application of law. Please note that I agree it is unfair getting the money from innocent tax payers. I only disagree on the liability issue.

You're Libertarian, how do you disagree with ttwtt78640 on liability in this case?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I appreciate the polite discussion, but I don't think we are going to change each others' minds. It's getting into the nuance of application of law. Please note that I agree it is unfair getting the money from innocent tax payers. I only disagree on the liability issue.

Liability is the issue. Allowing the government to 'settle' claims using money taken by force from other people (for other purposes?) should be illegal. The government should be required, at a minimum, to take any such 'settlement' money out of the police department's budget rather than from general funds after saying "whoops, so sorry".

Those millions of dollars in "so sorry" (victim restitution?) funds are taken from those that could have been used for public schools, road maintenance or a tax break for the people. So long as the police officials are able to escape any direct accountability for the actions of those that they choose to hire, train and promote then nothing is apt to change. The idea that police officials can get away with firing the 'offender' and then paying off the victim(s) using general funds is ridiculous. At a minimum, pay raises for all police department employees should be forbidden for a decade.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I figured Libertarians have an inner desire to prosecute cops.

Prosecution for a criminal act is a separate issue entirely. What I am objecting to is the civil action taken. Imagine the outrage if simply because you were a customer of the XYZ company that you had to pay part of a settlement for the XYZ company's liability in a civil suit. At the very least, you would likely decide to no longer patronize the XYZ company - that option is not available to a taxpayer.

 

[Keridan]

You're Libertarian, how do you disagree with ttwtt78640 on liability in this case?

There is a range to libertarians on many issues. We have some basic issues we want, but not being one of the two main parties, we aren't as restricted in our talking points

Liability is the issue. Allowing the government to 'settle' claims using money taken by force from other people (for other purposes?) should be illegal. The government should be required, at a minimum, to take any such 'settlement' money out of the police department's budget rather than from general funds after saying "whoops, so sorry".

Those millions of dollars in "so sorry" (victim restitution?) funds are taken from those that could have been used for public schools, road maintenance or a tax break for the people. So long as the police officials are able to escape any direct accountability for the actions of those that they choose to hire, train and promote then nothing is apt to change. The idea that police officials can get away with firing the 'offender' and then paying off the victim(s) using general funds is ridiculous. At a minimum, pay raises for all police department employees should be forbidden for a decade.

Coming from their department I can buy. Unfortunately, money being fungible means that once that department overspends, they will pull from general to make up for it.

I feel there should be criminal prosecution, too. That should be the major deterrent for future problems. The problem is the only place to get the money for special needs and problems this girl faces is from the government that sent the man. While it is absolutely insane that the government gets to pick our pockets whenever they screw up, we are stuck with that arrangement for now. I would love to see legislation that changes it. But this representative of law enforcement changed this girl's entire future.

We really are in the fine details here. Neither of us wants the public to suffer for a failure of government. We would probably agree on lots of options that would help change it in the future. I think we just disagree on the best way to handle the government screwing this up with current laws.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is a range to libertarians on many issues. We have some basic issues we want, but not being one of the two main parties, we aren't as restricted in our talking points



Coming from their department I can buy. Unfortunately, money being fungible means that once that department overspends, they will pull from general to make up for it.

I feel there should be criminal prosecution, too. That should be the major deterrent for future problems. The problem is the only place to get the money for special needs and problems this girl faces is from the government that sent the man. While it is absolutely insane that the government gets to pick our pockets whenever they screw up, we are stuck with that arrangement for now. I would love to see legislation that changes it. But this representative of law enforcement changed this girl's entire future.

We really are in the fine details here. Neither of us wants the public to suffer for a failure of government. We would probably agree on lots of options that would help change it in the future. I think we just disagree on the best way to handle the government screwing this up with current laws.

That is precisely the point - the government has no reason to pass laws making themsleves liable for their actions when current law permits using public funds to pay for their mistakes. So long as the sheeple are forced to accept that nonsense then it will remain "the system" forever. IMHO, the only way a law could be enacted to hold government personnel responsible (civilly liable) for their hiring, training or promotion decisions is by ballot initiative.

 

[Keridan]

That is precisely the point - the government has no reason to pass laws making themsleves liable for their actions when current law permits using public funds to pay for their mistakes. So long as the sheeple are forced to accept that nonsense then it will remain "the system" forever. IMHO, the only way a law could be enacted to hold government personnel responsible (civilly liable) for their hiring, training or promotion decisions is by ballot initiative.

I couldn't agree with this more. Actually, a few years back, we actually managed to get a vote on the government having to get insurance through a private company and failure to do so meant closing dangerous programs. Unfortunately, it lost when the government spent our own money to advertise against it. Funny how that works.

I really hate how ingrained the system has become so that we can barely get laws up for a vote, much less actually allow for more than 2 parties.

 

[Moderate71]

Liability is the issue. Allowing the government to 'settle' claims using money taken by force from other people (for other purposes?) should be illegal. The government should be required, at a minimum, to take any such 'settlement' money out of the police department's budget rather than from general funds after saying "whoops, so sorry".

Those millions of dollars in "so sorry" (victim restitution?) funds are taken from those that could have been used for public schools, road maintenance or a tax break for the people. So long as the police officials are able to escape any direct accountability for the actions of those that they choose to hire, train and promote then nothing is apt to change. The idea that police officials can get away with firing the 'offender' and then paying off the victim(s) using general funds is ridiculous. At a minimum, pay raises for all police department employees should be forbidden for a decade.

If a small police department is sued and has to settle for tens of millions of dollars, should they have to close the department if it completely bankrupts them? Perhaps lay off half their police officers and only be available for 911 calls half the time?

 

[ttwtt78640]

If a small police department is sued and has to settle for tens of millions of dollars, should they have to close the department if it completely bankrupts them? Perhaps lay off half their police officers and only be available for 911 calls half the time?

Yes. Just as any business or individual would. Keeping a police department intact which is harming the public to a greater extent than they are funded to protect them deserves to be abolished and started over. The idea that public service employment is a job for life with guaranteed pay increases and periodic promotions to the level of one's absolute incompetence has to be stopped. If badges and guns are going to be issued to folks that would (instinctively?) use them to open fire on a 20 lb. dog (not hitting that animal even once, BTW) in a room full of children then perhaps we should want a top down management change.

 

[cabse5]

if a small police department is sued and has to settle for tens of millions of dollars, should they have to close the department if it completely bankrupts them? Perhaps lay off half their police officers and only be available for 911 calls half the time?

exactly.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Yes. Just as any business or individual would. Keeping a police department intact which is harming the public to a greater extent than they are funded to protect them deserves to be abolished and started over. The idea that public service employment is a job for life with guaranteed pay increases and periodic promotions to the level of one's absolute incompetence has to be stopped. If badges and guns are going to be issued to folks that would (instinctively?) use them to open fire on a 20 lb. dog (not hitting that animal even once, BTW) in a room full of children then perhaps we should want a top down management change.

No. Policing or firemen are public services not a business. They should be insured.
LEOs should also be tracked nationally and once they reach a payout threshold, they become uninsurable and thus unemployable as LEOs. Bad cops should not be shuffled around like bad religious leaders (priests et al.).

Removal of an essential service should not be an option. Tax payers have very little control of hiring but would disproportionately be held accountable.

 

[Moderate71]

Yes. Just as any business or individual would. Keeping a police department intact which is harming the public to a greater extent than they are funded to protect them deserves to be abolished and started over. The idea that public service employment is a job for life with guaranteed pay increases and periodic promotions to the level of one's absolute incompetence has to be stopped. If badges and guns are going to be issued to folks that would (instinctively?) use them to open fire on a 20 lb. dog (not hitting that animal even once, BTW) in a room full of children then perhaps we should want a top down management change.

I'm imagining living in a small town in a sparsely populated area and your town's police department is only open half the time. Better yet, imagine a local paramedic getting sued for incompetence and the city responds by shutting down the town's ambulance service instead of replacing the paramedic.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm imagining living in a small town in a sparsely populated area and your town's police department is only open half the time. Better yet, imagine a local paramedic getting sued for incompetence and the city responds by shutting down the town's ambulance service instead of replacing the paramedic.

I live in a "city" that has no police department at all - the county sheriff, some deputies and constables serve that function. Rest assured that you would not collect a huge settlement by suing them. The point is that a paramedic or police officer is not going to be sued - the government (i.e. the taxpayers) is being sued. Why should children have fewer text books or roads remain unrepaired because of a crime committed by a paramedic or police officer?

 

[Moderate71]

I live in a "city" that has no police department at all - the county sheriff, some deputies and constables serve that function. Rest assured that you would not collect a huge settlement by suing them. The point is that a paramedic or police officer is not going to be sued - the government (i.e. the taxpayers) is being sued. Why should children have fewer text books or roads remain unrepaired because of a crime committed by a paramedic or police officer?

So we should not only limit victims to merely what a small department can afford to pay, we should also allow towns and small cities of potentially up to 5,000 people to go without police/ambulance services?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So we should not only limit victims to merely what a small department can afford to pay, we should also allow towns and small cities of potentially up to 5,000 people to go without police/ambulance services?

We should explain to a civil judge/jury the consequences of their generosity with other peoples money. You seem to want to spread the damages as widely as possible by awarding the victims as much as possible - I want to limit the damages to those that caused it.

 

[sangha]

We should explain to a civil judge/jury the consequences of their generosity with other peoples money. You seem to want to spread the damages as widely as possible by awarding the victims as much as possible - I want to limit the damages to those that caused it.

I think damages should not come from the general funds of a govt, but instead come from a specific assessment sent to each taxpayer in the community. When taxpayers get to see exactly how much their police depts misbehavior is costing them, they will vote whoever is in office out. You can be sure the next guy in will make sure the police are only hiring qualified candidates