Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's actually not wrong to think different cultures would have different levels of compliance but that is not the issue. There are more shootings in the US because both police and citizens have guns - outside of any cultural differences - that is the main reason. My argument was that almost all police shootings of this type involve non compliance.

Yeah, but non-compliance happens. Sometimes its deliberate, but often as not its someone misunderstanding the request or just not complying fast enough, things that can happen easily when placed in a serious and unusual situation like a cop shouting orders at you.

I agree with the argument that people should comply, but I think its false to think that expecting more compliance will make these problems go away. Because there's nothing that will just make compliance go up, even if people all agree that they should, because failure to comply is often as not a mistake caused by the stress of the situation.

And yeah, I agree that the presence of guns is probably the reason this happens in the US more than other developed countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.

If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?

It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.

If I crash my car in to yours, I might not have done anything illegal but I'll still be on the hook for fixing the damages. This is really no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:
Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?

I remember when the US led the world and showed people what a great nation could be, as distinct from a failed state like the USSR. Now it seems 'not as bad as Russia' is the best that can be hoped for.

 sebster wrote:


If I crash my car in to yours, I might not have done anything illegal but I'll still be on the hook for fixing the damages. This is really no different.

It is. If you crash your car into mine you're at fault and you must pay for that. In my country damaging other people property is illegal.

Shooting towards someone unarmed can be read into several ways instead: accident, self defense, manslaughter or murder. It's up to judges and jury to determine the outcome. And what America seems to do is to condone every killer cop of their actions but giving millions to the victims' families to compensate them.

In my country cops are not above the law and usually end up in prison when they commit serious crimes, even if they usually don't shoot towards unarmed citizens (I remember just one case about 10 years ago, of course the cop was jailed and he also became one of the most hated person in the country) but if their actions were justified no one gives you or your family some money. Not even a cent.

If those killer cops didn't do anything illegal the victims' families shouldn't receive any money, simple. IMHO the officer in the video deserved a life sentence.

 sebster wrote:

Mario wrote:
Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?

I remember when the US led the world and showed people what a great nation could be, as distinct from a failed state like the USSR. Now it seems 'not as bad as Russia' is the best that can be hoped for.

And at least in Russia you could accidentally drop a couple thousand roubles out the window into the officers hand to have them go away without shooting you. In the US you get shot whilst reaching for your wallet.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Mario wrote:
Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?

I remember when the US led the world and showed people what a great nation could be, as distinct from a failed state like the USSR. Now it seems 'not as bad as Russia' is the best that can be hoped for.

And at least in Russia you could accidentally drop a couple thousand roubles out the window into the officers hand to have them go away without shooting you. In the US you get shot whilst reaching for your wallet.

 Blackie wrote:

 sebster wrote:


If I crash my car in to yours, I might not have done anything illegal but I'll still be on the hook for fixing the damages. This is really no different.

It is. If you crash your car into mine you're at fault and you must pay for that. In my country damaging other people property is illegal.

Shooting towards someone unarmed can be read into several ways instead: accident, self defense, manslaughter or murder. It's up to judges and jury to determine the outcome. And what America seems to do is to condone every killer cop of their actions but giving millions to the victims' families to compensate them.

In my country cops are not above the law and usually end up in prison when they commit serious crimes, even if they usually don't shoot towards unarmed citizens (I remember just one case about 10 years ago, of course the cop was jailed and he also became one of the most hated person in the country) but if their actions were justified no one gives you or your family some money. Not even a cent.

If those killer cops didn't do anything illegal the victims' families shouldn't receive any money, simple. IMHO the officer in the video deserved a life sentence.

I am in agreement with you. If the cops is ruled not guilty - there should be no settlements. I don't agree that the officer should have a life sentence though. This video does meet the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt. We just can't see whats going on in there. If the man was pulling out a gun - he absolutely made the right call. If he wasn't - he shot a man for being scared and confused which is flat out terrible and deserves jail time.

Think about this. If a jury knows that the families are going to get settlements for big money - it makes them less likely to go for a guilty charge because it's kind of a win/win situation. One man gets to go free and the victims families get rich. The alternative is the cops life is destroyed (and you still really don't know if he did anything wrong) and the families still get rich.

Not guilty means no settlement? So an innocent man/woman loses their life. A family loses a father/mother/son/daughter/etc. Who might be the primary provider for the family and nothing should happen? Just because the cop is declared not guilty? Frankly the notion that the department should go "well sucks to be the innocent person's family but not guilty so!", is absurd.

Not guilty != Factually Innocent.

There are gobs of reasons why someone acquitted at a criminal trial may still be liable in civil court. Nobody seems too broken up about OJ Simpson's situation, why should police get a special exemption?

I'm going to point out that we don't ever find people "innocent" of crimes. We find them "not guilty". There's a reason for that.

Sorry I thought the flag next to your name was a Russian flag. Hard to tell when I'm viewing this on a 4 inch screen, lol.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentencing/index.html

Just here to stir. Scott clearly didn't comply. He got out of the car at the stop. He ran. He fought with the officer.

 avantgarde wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentencing/index.html

Just here to stir. Scott clearly didn't comply. He got out of the car at the stop. He ran. He fought with the officer.

Despite your admitted troll post, I'm going to respond for the benefit of other readers unfamiliar with what you are referencing here. Scott was shot multiple times in the back by Slager, and then Slager planted a weapon on Scott's body. Nobody fought anyone.

criminal cases tend to require 'beyond reasonable doubt'

which is going to depend on what jurors thing but probably need them to be 95% (insert your own number here, some would want more than this, some will be happy with less) sure the accused is guilty

civil cases tend to require 'on balance of probabilities'

which many will take to mean 51%

so it's easy to see why a jury may find an officer (or anybody else) innocent of a shooting, but when it comes to a civil case they're much more likely to convict (plus it's easier to say guilty when it's only money at stake, especially if it's an insurance companies money)

Well we do have Furgison, Missouri. Michael Brown did assault an officer, evidence shows that he tried to take his weapon, and even charged the officer once he had a gun drawn on him. Still there was a rather large civil settlement. Not saying that the officer was an angel, just saying that many times cities settle cases just to get into the good graces of certain communities.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well we do have Furgison, Missouri. Michael Brown did assault an officer, evidence shows that he tried to take his weapon, and even charged the officer once he had a gun drawn on him. Still there was a rather large civil settlement. Not saying that the officer was an angel, just saying that many times cities settle cases just to get into the good graces of certain communities.

They also settle because the cost of just paying up is lower than the cost of the trial itself. I don't think it was just about getting into good graces. A civil case would have dragged up all the ugliness that the DoJ investigation revealed and amplified it times a thousand. People can ignore some stuffy report from a government office with stats and assessments. It's harder to ignore people on the stand. Certainly the settlement was about saving face.

 Blackie wrote:
It is. If you crash your car into mine you're at fault and you must pay for that. In my country damaging other people property is illegal.

Uh, for something to be illegal it has to break a law, result in a criminal charge. Accidentally damaging someone else's car through a simple, non-negligent mistake isn't illegal, it won't produce a criminal charge. But that doesn't mean the person who made the mistake walks away, he is still responsible for fixing the other person's car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I am in agreement with you. If the cops is ruled not guilty - there should be no settlements.

No, there is a world of difference between an individual officer being found guilty of breaching a specific criminal standard, and the department as a whole being found responsible in a civil suit.

Once again, if you crash in to my car you might not have done anything criminally wrong, but you still made a mistake and its you that will pay to make it right, not me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
criminal cases tend to require 'beyond reasonable doubt'

which is going to depend on what jurors thing but probably need them to be 95% (insert your own number here, some would want more than this, some will be happy with less) sure the accused is guilty

civil cases tend to require 'on balance of probabilities'

It's not just the difference in standards of doubt, the criminal charge also requires either a deliberate act, or a very high level of reckless or negligent behaviour to reach a criminal charge. Whereas the civil charge only really requires that a mistake was made, with no strong standard as to how careless that mistake was.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well we do have Furgison, Missouri. Michael Brown did assault an officer, evidence shows that he tried to take his weapon, and even charged the officer once he had a gun drawn on him. Still there was a rather large civil settlement. Not saying that the officer was an angel, just saying that many times cities settle cases just to get into the good graces of certain communities.

They also settle because the cost of just paying up is lower than the cost of the trial itself. I don't think it was just about getting into good graces. A civil case would have dragged up all the ugliness that the DoJ investigation revealed and amplified it times a thousand. People can ignore some stuffy report from a government office with stats and assessments. It's harder to ignore people on the stand. Certainly the settlement was about saving face.

Wasn't it pointed out that although there was some "ugliness" in Ferguson that in fact it was marginally better than other major metropolitan areas like New York, LA, or Miami?

I heard people say it but I never saw the evidence to back it up. Doesn't really matter cause its beside the point. Rodney King. Stop and frisk. It's not like anyone is claiming New York LA or Miami (who I'm sure has plenty of scandals) are clean. The investigation of Ferguson made it pretty clear that any civil case would be very embarrassing indictment of the Ferguson justice system. No one in their right mind would want that to go forward. "New York is worse" is a really gakky defense strategy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not guilty means no settlement? So an innocent man/woman loses their life. A family loses a father/mother/son/daughter/etc. Who might be the primary provider for the family and nothing should happen? Just because the cop is declared not guilty? Frankly the notion that the department should go "well sucks to be the innocent person's family but not guilty so!", is absurd.

The point is: if the cop is cleared of any wrongdoing who should pay for the victim's family? Not the cop because he didn't do anything wrong. Not the community because it's not responsible for that death. If the training was the cause of the bad decision why those trainings are not changed? Because they think they're appropriate, so not the training fault.

If someone dies for illness, suicide or because of an accident with no people involved do their families receive settlements? Of course not. A settlement is basically a refund that implies some fault somewhere, in cases like this one I don't see anyone taking responsability about what happened.

This settlement policy that is so common in the USA has the only purpose to stop the victim's familiy fight for justice and to cover up a murder. Simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Uh, for something to be illegal it has to break a law, result in a criminal charge. Accidentally damaging someone else's car through a simple, non-negligent mistake isn't illegal, it won't produce a criminal charge. But that doesn't mean the person who made the mistake walks away, he is still responsible for fixing the other person's car.

This is not true, breaking the law doesn't mean ending up in jail. Damaging other people's property is breaking the law even if the punishment is not a jail conviction. But if you don't pay for the damage caused I can call the police and that could lead to a criminal charge.

The comparison you made would be fair if you damage my car and walk free, which means you don't pay and nothing happens to you. In real life if you don't pay the police will come into your house

In this case the cop was cleared by any wrongdoing, he won't pay the settlement. The taxpayers and an insurance fund paid.

 Blackie wrote:


The point is: if the cop is cleared of any wrongdoing who should pay for the victim's family?

People have already said this but I'll say it another way; being found not guilty in court is not the same thing as having done nothing wrong.

And being blunt, the community is kind of responsible. The state is supposed to be answerable to us, the voters. We're complacent. We'll complain left and right about the dangers of the state to individual life, but we happily ignore those dangers when they are inflicted on people we deem undesirable or unworthy. We create excuses and blame the victim. We apologize for law enforcement left and right, because we're not doing anything wrong and we just assume they will never hurt us. Until they do. And then they find some way, anyway, to paint you as a bad person because bad people are probably criminals too. Society enables these things to happen because society chooses not to care until its too late, and even then would rather look for excuses instead of solutions. So yeah. I think the community kind of is responsible. If society doesn't want to pay out huge sums to the families of people killed by cops, the solution is for cops to kill fewer people, not shrug and declare it "not our problem."

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not guilty means no settlement? So an innocent man/woman loses their life. A family loses a father/mother/son/daughter/etc. Who might be the primary provider for the family and nothing should happen? Just because the cop is declared not guilty? Frankly the notion that the department should go "well sucks to be the innocent person's family but not guilty so!", is absurd.

The point is: if the cop is cleared of any wrongdoing who should pay for the victim's family? Not the cop because he didn't do anything wrong. Not the community because it's not responsible for that death. If the training was the cause of the bad decision why those trainings are not changed? Because they think they're appropriate, so not the training fault.

If someone dies for illness, suicide or because of an accident with no people involved do their families receive settlements? Of course not. A settlement is basically a refund that implies some fault somewhere, in cases like this one I don't see anyone taking responsability about what happened.

This settlement policy that is so common in the USA has the only purpose to stop the victim's familiy fight for justice and to cover up a murder. Simple.

Who should pay? The department and by extension the city who employed the officer that made the fatal mistake of shooting someone innocent. The organization or entity these people work for holds responsibility for its own people. Just like the hot coffee lawsuit in which the woman suffered horrible burns, it was given to her by an employee but the company is responsible. Also training being appropriate? Really depends on who you're asking, but of course the department is going to deny training is insufficient because it makes them all look bad.

Suicide no. Illness or accident? That really depends on the circumstances. If a doctor didn't treat them properly or if the driver was drunk when he killed them there is a good basis for financial compensation. A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver. In cases like this is becomes pretty clear that some people are not cut out to be police officers. Not only did the DA think the officer was wrong, they figured they had enough of a case to go to trial. Even though he was found not guilty its pretty clear who was held responsible and by extent his employer. Nobody is going to take the blame for murdering an innocent man, the fact that they pay out settlements makes it pretty clear the department knows its held responsible in the end.

Again, settlements like this happen not only in the US. The settlements being so large and it being the US is what grabs our attention. Also the purpose is not to stop the family's fight for justice. They can't fight for that in a civil suit in the first place. There was a criminal trial, how is that covering up? An impartiat jury found him not guilty. Yes there might be flaws in the judicial/jury system, but its hardly a case of settlements=cover up.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Who should pay? The department and by extension the city who employed the officer that made the fatal mistake of shooting someone innocent. The organization or entity these people work for holds responsibility for its own people. Just like the hot coffee lawsuit in which the woman suffered horrible burns, it was given to her by an employee but the company is responsible. Also training being appropriate? Really depends on who you're asking, but of course the department is going to deny training is insufficient because it makes them all look bad.

But if a cop is cleared of any wrongdoing his actions were not a mistake, were part of the training which is never questioned and was considerate appropriate. Otherwise there would be changes and there aren't any. The department and the city should not be responsible if they hired someone with all the appropriate requirements and he followed the traininig which is still considered appropriate.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Suicide no. Illness or accident? That really depends on the circumstances. If a doctor didn't treat them properly or if the driver was drunk when he killed them there is a good basis for financial compensation. A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver.

These are all examples in which someone has been judged at fault. Again if the trial demostrates that the actions of that cop were correct in that precise moment, by the law he should have zero fault on that matter. Like the department, that can be at fault if the cop didn't have the necessary requirements or the police training was considered wrong, dangerous or bad. But none of these things were questioned in this case or any other similar case.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver. In cases like this is becomes pretty clear that some people are not cut out to be police officers. Not only did the DA think the officer was wrong, they figured they had enough of a case to go to trial. Even though he was found not guilty its pretty clear who was held responsible and by extent his employer. Nobody is going to take the blame for murdering an innocent man, the fact that they pay out settlements makes it pretty clear the department knows its held responsible in the end.

But what the DA or the department thinks about that is irrelevant, if by the law the cop was cleared of wrongdoings he's an innocent man.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again, settlements like this happen not only in the US. The settlements being so large and it being the US is what grabs our attention. Also the purpose is not to stop the family's fight for justice. They can't fight for that in a civil suit in the first place. There was a criminal trial, how is that covering up? An impartiat jury found him not guilty. Yes there might be flaws in the judicial/jury system, but its hardly a case of settlements=cover up.

Yes they are some sort of cover up because the family will stop fighting for justice after receiving money. Instead they should continue fighting for a better society. The hypocrisy of this system is appalling, everyone knows that those cops are just murderers but no one wants to punish them, because americans are not impartial about this matter. Then to clear some coscience a huge settlement is given and everyone's happy. And with this system in the USA tons of innocent people are murdered for no reason.

Even the cop that recently got 20 years for shooting a man in the back while fleeing wasn't found guilty by one of those "impartial" jury despite the video showed a clear murder.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Who should pay? The department and by extension the city who employed the officer that made the fatal mistake of shooting someone innocent. The organization or entity these people work for holds responsibility for its own people. Just like the hot coffee lawsuit in which the woman suffered horrible burns, it was given to her by an employee but the company is responsible. Also training being appropriate? Really depends on who you're asking, but of course the department is going to deny training is insufficient because it makes them all look bad.

But if a cop is cleared of any wrongdoing his actions were not a mistake, were part of the training which is never questioned and was considerate appropriate. Otherwise there would be changes and there aren't any. The department and the city should not be responsible if they hired someone with all the appropriate requirements and he followed the traininig which is still considered appropriate.

No he is cleared of any criminal wrongdoings, which is the key distinction. He still made mistakes, but not sufficient to declare him guilty in a criminal case. Your "there would be changes" attitude is hopelessly optimistic. Sometimes its cheaper and easier to just face the music once in a while than to affect massive institutional changes. Standards and training might be considered appropriate without actually being so. Plus the department has responsibility beyond just meeting requirements for training such as keeping an eye on stress levels and perhaps mental state/problems that affect a person's ability to do their job. Responsibility goes beyond just checking a few boxes and throwing your hands up.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Suicide no. Illness or accident? That really depends on the circumstances. If a doctor didn't treat them properly or if the driver was drunk when he killed them there is a good basis for financial compensation. A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver.

These are all examples in which someone has been judged at fault. Again if the trial demostrates that the actions of that cop were correct in that precise moment, by the law he should have zero fault on that matter. Like the department, that can be at fault if the cop didn't have the necessary requirements or the police training was considered wrong, dangerous or bad. But none of these things were questioned in this case or any other similar case.

No they aren't. These could be civil trials. A doctor might be cleared of any criminal wrongdoings just like a driver or a police officer. The police officer at the end of the day shot an innocent man, he is clearly at fault for his death, just not criminally at fault. You keep missing the difference between a criminal trial and a civil suit. And "any other similar case"? Bit of a sweeping an generalizing statement to make.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver. In cases like this is becomes pretty clear that some people are not cut out to be police officers. Not only did the DA think the officer was wrong, they figured they had enough of a case to go to trial. Even though he was found not guilty its pretty clear who was held responsible and by extent his employer. Nobody is going to take the blame for murdering an innocent man, the fact that they pay out settlements makes it pretty clear the department knows its held responsible in the end.

But what the DA or the department thinks about that is irrelevant, if by the law the cop was cleared of wrongdoings he's an innocent man.

What the DA thinks isn't irrelevant now is it? The whole reason the cop got cleared and declared not guilty is because the DA saw enough of a case that he might be judged guilty. There were enough assumptions about reasonable guilt to decide to move to the trial stage, just because a jury saw it otherwise does not make the whole process beforehand irrelevant. And again, he was just cleared of criminal wrongdoings. It still makes the officer or the department liable for the death in different ways.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again, settlements like this happen not only in the US. The settlements being so large and it being the US is what grabs our attention. Also the purpose is not to stop the family's fight for justice. They can't fight for that in a civil suit in the first place. There was a criminal trial, how is that covering up? An impartiat jury found him not guilty. Yes there might be flaws in the judicial/jury system, but its hardly a case of settlements=cover up.

Yes they are some sort of cover up because the family will stop fighting for justice after receiving money. Instead they should continue fighting for a better society. The hypocrisy of this system is appalling, everyone knows that those cops are just murderers but no one wants to punish them, because americans are not impartial about this matter. Then to clear some coscience a huge settlement is given and everyone's happy. And with this system in the USA tons of innocent people are murdered for no reason.

Even the cop that recently got 20 years for shooting a man in the back while fleeing wasn't found guilty by one of those "impartial" jury despite the video showed a clear murder.

But the family can only try to get others to fight for justice. Plus once they had a trial beyond going to a higher court there is little you can do. The woman in question settled on the amount after the criminal trial. The whole fighting for a better society thing is nonesense. Just because they lost a family member doesn't mean they should have the inherent obligation to champion massive change. Losing a family member like that can be incredibly tragic and invasive in people's personal lives. A settlement can function as closure while giving some sense of financial security in dealing with the aftermath. Expecting a grieving family to keep reopening old wounds to champion change in society that society should champion for them as the victims is just odd. The idea that settlements makes the people left behind happy is an even weirder idea. Ask anyone who lost someone close unexpectedly, money doesn't fix the sense of loss and certainly doesn't make you happy.

And no, there is a significant movement against police violence through groups such as Black Lives Matter. Plenty of people want police officers to be punished for these things. But that doesn't mean you have to impose the responsibility of championing that punishment on family members. They can if they want to, but it should never be requored/expected.

Wait, the cop who got 20 YEARS was ruled not guilty? So how did he get 20 years then?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Wait, the cop who got 20 YEARS was ruled not guilty? So how did he get 20 years then?

The jury didn't found him not guilty, there was a mistrial as the jurors failed to agree about the verdict. Then he pleaded guilty and the judge inflicted 20 years.

The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Wait, the cop who got 20 YEARS was ruled not guilty? So how did he get 20 years then?

The jury didn't found him not guilty, there was a mistrial as the jurors failed to agree about the verdict. Then he pleaded guilty and the judge inflicted 20 years.

The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.

A mistrial means mistrial. Its not not guilty, the jury didn't reach a verdict. And yes, that is the risk with citizen juries, sometimes they feth up.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-michael-slager-faces-19-24-years-prison/story?id=51595376 somewhat related

Edit: created new thread for this one.....

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/12/04/autopsy-doctors-sheriff-overrode-death-findings-to-protect-law-enforcement

Somewhat relevant to the discussion

 Blackie wrote:
The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.

We have posters in this very thread who are absolutely convinced that a cop cannot under any circumstance commit murder, and anyone who is killed by a cop had it coming. Only takes 1 of these people in the jury for a mistrial, right?

 Blackie wrote:
This is not true, breaking the law doesn't mean ending up in jail.

Go read my post again. Notice how many times I mentioned jail. Spoiler alert, it was zero times. What I said was that there are many times where a person can make a mistake, where they weren't negligent or reckless to the point of it being a crime, but they're still responsible for making the other party whole.

Damaging other people's property is breaking the law even if the punishment is not a jail conviction. But if you don't pay for the damage caused I can call the police and that could lead to a criminal charge.

You're completely wrong. If I damaged your property by mistake, it is not a police matter. For instance, if I say I really like your Forgeworld Imperial Knight, and I pick it up and accidentally drop it and it shatters, there is nothing stopping me from simply walking away. If you call the police they will likely tell you it is a civil matter, and tell you to take the matter through civil courts. And it would only be after determination in courts or arbitration, if I stil refused to pay then there'd be legal issues. But the charge then the legal issue would be contempt of court, for refusing to follow a legal ruling, at no point would the original accident ever become a criminal act.

Do you get it now? We don't criminalise accidents, but we give people affected by other's accidents a civil remedy.

As such, in a criminal prosecution 'sorry, I didn't mean to' can mean the officer avoids prison, but the officer and his employer will still be on the hook in a civil court for the harm done by the officer's mistake.

 sebster wrote:

As such, in a criminal prosecution 'sorry, I didn't mean to' can mean the officer avoids prison, but the officer and his employer will still be on the hook in a civil court for the harm done by the officer's mistake.

Well when thos cops kill someone and go to trial the words "sorry, I didn't mean to do it" never come out of their mouths, they just keep saying that what they did was the result of the training, correct actions due to circumstances, not mistakes. The whole discussion not guilty of crimial charges but responsible crashes when you notice who in fact pays the settlements. Not the cops, they don't pay a single cent, which means they're considered not responsible and totally innocent, even in civil courts.