Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
These things are why I'm absolutely immoveable on two points:
1. I don't believe in settlements in these sorts of cases unless the terms are SO humiliating that they're as good as a judgement. I don't want to hear crap about the city or department "not admitting liability". No sweat, since a judgement takes care of that nicely. Half the murderers in this country don't admit liability either. I'll have a piece of paper CERTIFYING that the guilty parties are in fact the guilty parties.
2. I will NEVER, EVER sign ANY settlement with a non-disclosure clause in it. NEVER. Anybody who thinks they're going to violate my 4th or 5th Amendment rights, then give them written PERMISSION to violate my 1st Amendment rights is smoking catfood. We'll go to trial or have a gunfight for all I care. I'll DIE before I sign such a contract of adhesion. GUARANTEED.
And in examples of gross officer misconduct, I'll find a way to sue the individual if at all humanly possible. The guilty party shouldn't expect to just tiptoe offstage whistling nervously.
Sheriff wrote:
Deanimator wrote:I have never seen a cop fired for a false arrest. In one particular false arrest that I am familiar with, a rookiecop wasn't even fired after he went to the magistrate's office 4 hours after the false arrest and lied under oath to the magistrate in order to obtain the false arrest warrants. The 4 hour delay was because the cop realized he had screwed up big time and actually made a false arrest. When he could find no other legitimate crime to charge the person with, there was nothing left to do but lie on the original false arrest charge. After the lawsuits were filed and the truth was revealed, he wasn't even fired then.They can't be fired for a gross act of false arrest? That seems odd. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it's odd.
Although, had the lawsuits actually gone to court, rather than an out of court settlement, I think the public would have demanded this cop's head served up on a silver platter for his perjury. If you understand where I am going with this, this is why so many out of court settlements take place. The police chief didn't want this lawsuit being heard before a jury with the media sitting on the front row taking notes for the next day's newspaper story.
Just so this tale doesn't leave a bad taste in everybody's mouths, the sergeant on duty was my brother-in-law. He was later terminated after 20+ years on the job. He knew it was a false arrest as it was taking place and did nothing to intervene and make things right as his rookie was jumping off this cliff without a parachute.
These things are why I'm absolutely immoveable on two points:
1. I don't believe in settlements in these sorts of cases unless the terms are SO humiliating that they're as good as a judgement. I don't want to hear crap about the city or department "not admitting liability". No sweat, since a judgement takes care of that nicely. Half the murderers in this country don't admit liability either. I'll have a piece of paper CERTIFYING that the guilty parties are in fact the guilty parties.
2. I will NEVER, EVER sign ANY settlement with a non-disclosure clause in it. NEVER. Anybody who thinks they're going to violate my 4th or 5th Amendment rights, then give them written PERMISSION to violate my 1st Amendment rights is smoking catfood. We'll go to trial or have a gunfight for all I care. I'll DIE before I sign such a contract of adhesion. GUARANTEED.
And in examples of gross officer misconduct, I'll find a way to sue the individual if at all humanly possible. The guilty party shouldn't expect to just tiptoe offstage whistling nervously.