SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the officers-to-be-given-social-media-training dept.
Creative Loafing Atlanta reports:
Baton Bob, Atlanta's self-proclaimed ambassador of mirth, lost some of his joy on June 26, 2013. Dressed in his finest wedding dress, the well-known street performer's celebratory routine following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to end the federal gay marriage ban was cut short when an off-duty Atlanta Police officer arrested him after what was initially described as an alleged "verbal altercation."
But Baton Bob — real name Bob Jamerson — later claimed the arrest violated his constitutional rights, so he filed a lawsuit against the city. Nearly two years after the incident, officials are offering a $20,000 settlement for Baton Bob's troubles. The Atlanta City Council's Public Safety Committee will take up the settlement this afternoon.
In February, Jamerson filed a federal lawsuit against the city, arguing that officers made a wrongful arrest that violated, well, nearly every constitutional right you can name. Those included Jamerson's "right to free speech, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his right to privacy."
[...] Lt. Jeffrey Cantin, who was on duty with APD that day, emailed APD Public Affairs to work their "media magic with this case," according to the lawsuit. The filing says APD's internal investigators later discovered that Cantin proceeded to tell Jamerson to "post something positive" on his Baton Bob Facebook page. According to the lawsuit, APD officers told the performer that doing so was the only way he would be released from custody on a "signature bond."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Tuesday May 19 2015, @05:23AM
Agreed, however, cops usually have qualified immunity which makes it difficult to get a court to find them personally liable for damages. And even when the court does, most of the time the government will just pay the damages, unless the crime is so egregious that he's fired. The cop in South Carolina who killed that guy who turned and ran a month back may be one of those exceptions. The police union and the police department will not represent him so he's on his own I think in all things.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 19 2015, @01:51PM
That whole immunity business needs to be reexamined. If the cop is following the law as he understands it, in conformance with his training and department directives, then maybe I can see immunity if/when something goes wrong. And, things do go wrong sometimes, even when everyone involved has the best intentions.
Then, there should be some limited liability. Maybe he's basically following the law, but he steps out of line, neglecting his training. Some silly crap happens, and he's to blame for being sloppy. He should be liable for some of the damages. The department is still liable, but shares the liability with the guy who goofed up.
And then, there's the kind of crap you cite, where a cop just gets all freaking gung-ho, and kills someone because NO ONE gets away from ME! Yeah, he should be entirely on his own - but that shouldn't let the department off the hook either. Always and forever, the department must be held accountable for the people it arms and puts on the streets. It's no different in the military - whichever branch you are serving in will always be responsible for you.
When the police imitate the military with a court martial system, then the cops will be worthy of the respect that I give service members.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @02:59PM
If the cop is following the law as he understands it, in conformance with his training and department directives, then maybe I can see immunity if/when something goes wrong.
I don't trust his understanding, and nor do I trust his training or department directives; it's all corrupt. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then that goes double for the people with power. They shouldn't be able to violate the constitution or law and then claim ignorance, regardless of their intentions.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:17PM
qualified immunity does not protect against incompetence or willful violations of the law or constitution, which is what we have here.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:13AM
I think I implied that. If not, nevertheless, you are correct.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.