Government Outrage Of The Day

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby spacemonkey » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:19 am

No worse then the family of F Grey being paid millions, then all the cops were acquitted by the courts. I wonder if the city asked for the money back? LOL.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby Philly » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:32 am

spacemonkey wrote:No worse then the family of F Grey being paid millions, then all the cops were acquitted by the courts. I wonder if the city asked for the money back? LOL.

You appear to not understand the difference between civil and criminal law.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby IndependentProfessor » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:11 pm

Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.
IndependentProfessor
Congressman
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:03 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 40 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby Philly » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:18 pm

IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.

They arrested this guy threw him in jail and released his mugshot for the world to see, all based on their own f**k. The damage is very real. If you want to avoid having to pay people for shit like this, one easy fix would be to stop prioritizing drug arrests.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby Winchester » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:22 pm

IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.


There are screw ups and mistakes, then there is negligence. A guy wants to argue negligence on an arrest where the officer followed procedure, power to him. Honestly though I just think he's pissed and is shooting for a lowball figure in hopes the city's insurance company will just settle the case rather than fight.
User avatar
Winchester
Governor
 
Posts: 5230
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:07 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 672 times
Been thanked: 760 times

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby IndependentProfessor » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:53 pm

Philly wrote:
IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.

They arrested this guy threw him in jail and released his mugshot for the world to see, all based on their own f**k. The damage is very real. If you want to avoid having to pay people for shit like this, one easy fix would be to stop prioritizing drug arrests.


All very true. However, none of that means anything until it's proven in court. All someone has to say is "nope - he's wrong" and it goes to trial. Think about every acquittal that would result in a lawsuit for damages (legal fees, missed time, etc.). Heck, I'd file suit just because I went to court on a traffic violation. (not really - but you see my point)
IndependentProfessor
Congressman
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:03 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 40 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby IndependentProfessor » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:54 pm

Winchester wrote:
IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.


There are screw ups and mistakes, then there is negligence. A guy wants to argue negligence on an arrest where the officer followed procedure, power to him. Honestly though I just think he's pissed and is shooting for a lowball figure in hopes the city's insurance company will just settle the case rather than fight.


True - but a screwup/mistake is still liable for damages in other cases. I didn't mean to run over that dudes dog, but I'm still liable for it.
IndependentProfessor
Congressman
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:03 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 40 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby Winchester » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:25 pm

IndependentProfessor wrote:
Winchester wrote:
IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.


There are screw ups and mistakes, then there is negligence. A guy wants to argue negligence on an arrest where the officer followed procedure, power to him. Honestly though I just think he's pissed and is shooting for a lowball figure in hopes the city's insurance company will just settle the case rather than fight.


Yeah, but if you ran over the guy's dog you were probably negligent. People can make mistakes and not be negligent.

True - but a screwup/mistake is still liable for damages in other cases. I didn't mean to run over that dudes dog, but I'm still liable for it.
User avatar
Winchester
Governor
 
Posts: 5230
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:07 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 672 times
Been thanked: 760 times

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby Philly » Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:07 pm

IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:
IndependentProfessor wrote:
Philly wrote:Winchester is a well known fascist bootlicker. The cops dragged this guy through both the system and the mud for nothing. He has every right to sue for damages.


I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. If "the government" (police, DA, etc.) screws up something and it legitimately costs you time, money, reputation, etc., then they should be liable for those damages.

However, put the principle into the real world, and we get a whole host of problems. For instance, how do you define "legitimate"? Well, that can only come AFTER at lease some legal proceedings have taken place. In our litigious society, imagine how many people will sue the government because of an imagined harm! The old saying goes that you "sue the person with the money" - well, who is the richest actor of them all? The government. So, we'd end up with countless lawsuits.

Those lawsuits take people to run. More judicial personnel. More government personnel to defend. It would balloon the size of government, which is not something that most people want.

They arrested this guy threw him in jail and released his mugshot for the world to see, all based on their own f**k. The damage is very real. If you want to avoid having to pay people for shit like this, one easy fix would be to stop prioritizing drug arrests.


All very true. However, none of that means anything until it's proven in court. All someone has to say is "nope - he's wrong" and it goes to trial. Think about every acquittal that would result in a lawsuit for damages (legal fees, missed time, etc.). Heck, I'd file suit just because I went to court on a traffic violation. (not really - but you see my point)

The state should pay damages for people acquitted of crimes. Especially for then most serious offenses, you're sure to cause severe damage to the accused's life just by charging them.

I know you have a family and a good job and like the community you live in Prof. Now, imagine you're arrested and charged with rape and murder. You get acquitted, but you've been put in jail for months awaiting trial without bail, and your whole community has read news reports that make you out to be a dangerous criminal. Do you think you're just gonna get back to your life and career as it was? Of course not. Your shit is gonna be all f**k up and you'll probably never fully recover from it. Why shouldn't you receive compensation for that from the entity that caused you all these problems?
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Government Outrage Of The Day

Postby ToddStarnes » Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:37 pm

That's an interesting idea. It would certainly cut back on prosecutor's willingness to bring charges they aren't certain of.
ToddStarnes
Senator
 
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:11 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 66 times

PreviousNext

Return to Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest