TexasCHLforum.com

So when you put your hands up and do as instructed by the police and a dog is released, you are not to defend yourself and let it maul you?

He denies punching the dog as if that would be some kind of arrestable offense.

I guess my reaction if I have my hands up, and a dog is released on me, I am going to do just about anything possible to not get bit. So then as you defend yourself, do you get shot? Tough anymore just peaceably minding your own business in your own house.

The sovereign immunity is capped at $250,000 and that includes death, so the cost to taxpayers is not much for government employee screw ups. Also they just don't give it to you even if they have no defense. So you will have to sue them and there are those costs.

Seamus,

Here is a good example of public funds paid out in settlement of police brutality cases, Jim.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/28 ... etail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Denver City Council has paid out more than one million dollars of taxpayer money so far this year to settle police brutality claims. These settlements are not paid by an insurance company. These settlements are accepted by the City Council as just the cost of doing business. What a business!

These settlements are too often then described as money paid to avoid the cost of litigation, with no discipline of the officers using excessive force. This over-used excuse is seen time and again after a defendant settles an excessive force claim, whether the settlement, and the source of funds, comes from an insurance company or the municipality itself.

If the law enforcement agency hiring these LEOs and excusing their actions had to pay the settlements from its own operating funds I am convinced we would see a change. "But this would decimate our police force!" is the response usually heard after such a suggestion.

The real question is "How many policemen with a different attitude could they hire for what they spend for these settlements?"

Elmo

Thanks.

Probably a city the size of Denver is self-insured. I also have no idea about differences in state law.

These settlements were for less than $50,000. The cost of litigation is such that simply preparing for preliminary hearings in a lawsuit would have cost that much.

The government entity has a dilemma in these cases. As happened here, they can pay "shut up and go away" money to the plaintiffs and not discipline the officers. Formally disciplining the officer could be seen as an admission of liability.

OTOH, they can blame the officer, saying that he acted contrary to the law and policy without official approval. That usually does not work in the most egregious cases, even when it is true (like Abner Louima).

- Jim

philip964 wrote:So when you put your hands up and do as instructed by the police and a dog is released, you are not to defend yourself and let it maul you?

He denies punching the dog as if that would be some kind of arrestable offense.

.

It more than likely is an arrestable offense. A lot of departments treat the dog as a regular officer.

b322da wrote:Seamus,

Here is a good example of public funds paid out in settlement of police brutality cases, Jim.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/28 ... etail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Denver City Council has paid out more than one million dollars of taxpayer money so far this year to settle police brutality claims. These settlements are not paid by an insurance company. These settlements are accepted by the City Council as just the cost of doing business. What a business!

These settlements are too often then described as money paid to avoid the cost of litigation, with no discipline of the officers using excessive force. This over-used excuse is seen time and again after a defendant settles an excessive force claim, whether the settlement, and the source of funds, comes from an insurance company or the municipality itself.

If the law enforcement agency hiring these LEOs and excusing their actions had to pay the settlements from its own operating funds I am convinced we would see a change. "But this would decimate our police force!" is the response usually heard after such a suggestion.

The real question is "How many policemen with a different attitude could they hire for what they spend for these settlements?"

Elmo

It would help, but the "thin blue line" is a problem too. If "good" cops would turn in "bad" cops this kind of thing would stop (for most part), but cops "ratting out" another.... ain't gonna happen.

...that actually happens quite often...brave men put their careers on the line for what they believe in...just as dangerous as facing gunfire...we gotta lotta good ones out there made of the right stuff...

rm9792 wrote:

philip964 wrote:So when you put your hands up and do as instructed by the police and a dog is released, you are not to defend yourself and let it maul you?

He denies punching the dog as if that would be some kind of arrestable offense.

.

It more than likely is an arrestable offense. A lot of departments treat the dog as a regular officer.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/06/21/p ... every-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the comments:

We have to go in with the element of surprise – otherwise evidence may be destroyed.”
“The homeowner shouldn’t have been surprised – it was obvious to even the most simple child that we were the police, and it was a legitimate raid.”

“Civilians [their term] aren’t competent and trained enough to handle firearms, we’re the only ones qualified.”
“Civilians are hyper-aware predators, often better armed than the police, and they practice more. That’s why we need to go in with soldier gear.”

“The situation [created by us] was extremely chaotic and tense, Officer Jones had no way of knowing that Mr. Smith was holding a box of Cheerios, and not a machine gun.”
“While we maintain that we had the element of surprise on our side with this raid, it was nonetheless clearly premeditated when Mr. Smith shot at Officer Jones. Mr. Smith had been planning for us to plan this for months.”

“Your dog was just a possession, like a toaster. What are you all bent out of shape about?”
“That police dog is a full officer of the law, which makes him your superior!”

“Ignorance of the law is no defense.”
“You’re under arrest – I’m not sure if what you’re doing is actually illegal, we’ll figure that part out later.”

Heck bring these guys down to the border. Have them get "tactical" with people who are not likely citizens of the USA. I'm sure DPS would appreciate the help.

It'll get it out of their system and I'm sure they'd spend the rest of the year recovering from heat exhaustion.

Bullwhip wrote:

rm9792 wrote:

philip964 wrote:So when you put your hands up and do as instructed by the police and a dog is released, you are not to defend yourself and let it maul you?

He denies punching the dog as if that would be some kind of arrestable offense.

.

It more than likely is an arrestable offense. A lot of departments treat the dog as a regular officer.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/06/21/p ... every-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the comments:

We have to go in with the element of surprise – otherwise evidence may be destroyed.”
“The homeowner shouldn’t have been surprised – it was obvious to even the most simple child that we were the police, and it was a legitimate raid.”

“Civilians [their term] aren’t competent and trained enough to handle firearms, we’re the only ones qualified.”
“Civilians are hyper-aware predators, often better armed than the police, and they practice more. That’s why we need to go in with soldier gear.”

“The situation [created by us] was extremely chaotic and tense, Officer Jones had no way of knowing that Mr. Smith was holding a box of Cheerios, and not a machine gun.”
“While we maintain that we had the element of surprise on our side with this raid, it was nonetheless clearly premeditated when Mr. Smith shot at Officer Jones. Mr. Smith had been planning for us to plan this for months.”

“Your dog was just a possession, like a toaster. What are you all bent out of shape about?”
“That police dog is a full officer of the law, which makes him your superior!”

“Ignorance of the law is no defense.”
“You’re under arrest – I’m not sure if what you’re doing is actually illegal, we’ll figure that part out later.”

OK -- got the link to work, finally. Those quotes are from a comment, and (apparently) don't express actual comments made by police in the situation mentioned. The are (again apparently) supposed to represent the type of statements made by police to justify their actions.

Just to stir the pot. The proliferation of SWAT teams is staggering. DHS is funding most of it (Dallas has received millions), the equipment, training and personnel costs are deferred by Federal funding. Why this push to encourage the establishment of para-military teams in even small cities and departments? Consider this, posse comitatus prohibits a standing army against the citizenry. But if you have teams placed throughout, trained and equipped as a military unit and beholden to and under oversight of the Federal government, you have a rapid response to any resistance that may arise; and they are technically not a standing army. Displays like this incident serve to intimidate the population at large as well.

Remember, if "they" ARE out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.

Purplehood wrote:Reminds me of a novel that I have read 2-3 times where the state of Texas secedes from the US. I specifically recall the Treasury SWAT team being called in by the Feds to recapture the Mint (not really a Mint, but a place where Federal Currency is produced) in (Austin?).

Scary thoughts.

Do you recall the name of the book / author. Sounds like a good read!

possibly a book called "Ayes of Texas"?

Dragonfighter wrote:Just to stir the pot. The proliferation of SWAT teams is staggering. DHS is funding most of it (Dallas has received millions), the equipment, training and personnel costs are deferred by Federal funding. Why this push to encourage the establishment of para-military teams in even small cities and departments? Consider this, <i>posse comitatus</i> prohibits a standing army against the citizenry. But if you have teams placed throughout, trained and equipped as a military unit and beholden to and under oversight of the Federal government, you have a rapid response to any resistance that may arise; and they are technically not a standing army. Displays like this incident serve to intimidate the population at large as well.

Remember, if "they" ARE out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.

Yup.

And that leads to "all dressed up and no where to go", which leads to teams being used for things that ordinary cops should be doing.

One thing to consider is that many (most?) SWAT teams are only part-time and are comprised of officers that perform their normal duties. Just throwing that out there for information.

flintknapper wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Just to stir the pot. The proliferation of SWAT teams is staggering. DHS is funding most of it (Dallas has received millions), the equipment, training and personnel costs are deferred by Federal funding. Why this push to encourage the establishment of para-military teams in even small cities and departments? Consider this, <i>posse comitatus</i> prohibits a standing army against the citizenry. But if you have teams placed throughout, trained and equipped as a military unit and beholden to and under oversight of the Federal government, you have a rapid response to any resistance that may arise; and they are technically not a standing army. Displays like this incident serve to intimidate the population at large as well.

Remember, if "they" ARE out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.

Yup.

And that leads to "all dressed up and no where to go", which leads to teams being used for things that ordinary cops should be doing.

That's exactly right. What's more, these teams need to justify their existence and funding. That provides them plenty of incentive not only to supplant the police but also to be more aggressive in going after low-level offenders and even non-offenders. All so that they can say, "Look how many raid we had last month" or, "See how many people we arrested."