Forum Post: 1,000,000 riot police are no match for 10,000 righteous lawsuits.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 10:58 p.m. EST by FawkesNews
(1290)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If a community thinks itself wealthy enough to spend money on riot police, to oppress the peaceful, it deserved its coffers plundered. Remember lawsuits payout compensation. Imagine all the good one could do with all that compensation.
Lawsuits, in this context, are really about promoting law and order. I mean, it's the only way a victim of police abuse can seek redress, and often it's the only deterrent to police misconduct. You know, people always hate lawyers, until they need one.
Don't be conned by right wing propaganda against lawyers. Of course they hate lawyers. They'd like companies to be able to do whatever they want, never mind if that mercury that they knowingly dumped in your groundwater gave you cancer, it's really the tort lawyer, working his ass off trying to fight against a giant corporation on your and your families behalf, who's the evil one. WTF?
Lawyers are like everyone else, some good some bad. Some become politicians, while some fight against political corruption. Some work for corporations and Wall Street, while others fight for the little guy against corporations and Wall Street. Some become really rich, but most are middle class.
Well said. Enough lawsuits change policy, awaken a population to abuses of power, and instill a new set of laws and elected officials. Any community so ignorant as to allow oppressive officials to exist, is surely deserving of the results.
You make a good point. Lawsuits are the rich person's way to redress. It is one of the tools in the tool box of democracy. I just wish people would stop believing it is the only way to obtain justice. Unless the powers that be make civil suits a democratic right, It should not be the only recourse.
Indeed, it's not the only way to seek justice, as you say, it's one of many (and it's only an available option in limited cases, when there's a plaintiff who was the victim of negligence, recklessness, official misconduct, corporate thievery, police abuse, etc.). We won't sue the corruption out of Washington, but the "ability to sue" is one check against political corruption and the concentration of power.
Spoken like a lobbyist for lawyers.
Actually, spoken like a lobbyist for the rights of the oppressed. When lawyers are no longer useful, ultra-violence is. Your preference lays with?
I have documented evidence that a police officer committed perjury in regard to the alleged sexual abuse of a child and because of the chief of polices association with the FBI it has yet to be exposed. I would like to find an attorney to expose the department of justice via lawsuit for refusing to investigate the documented police corruption.
That is a very tough situation. My deepest condolences. There are a plethora of attorneys who are able to assist you. The best ones would go after those responsible, of those responsible, thus pitting the culpable against the nearly culpable. Police are only loyal to one another until they are both charged with a crime. It is then that they turn coin on each other, like rats off a sinking ship. I wish you the best of luck.
the best lawsuit would be one where the initial offense is documented on video. I know people, and how quickly they let their emotions overcome a "peaceful protest" (just look at the individual attacks on these forums even, like when one complains about something from their individual experience) otherwise, i would tend to favor the police.
Eye witness testimony, in most cases, is even more valuable. First, a video requires authentication (which means eye witness testimony is still required). Moreover, opposing counsel can always argue context (and aver that a video doesn't convey all the surrounding circumstances). Physical restraint, using pepper spray, stun guns, firearms, etc. are all among the lawful tools available to law enforcement, so a lawyer needs to show that use of force, under the circumstances in a given case, was improper. This is not an easy thing to prove (because the law generally favors police officers), however, it can be proven (and obviously in many instances suits for police abuse are successful).
It is obvious that what is required is video evidence. It is growing and becoming more powerful, especially combined with the power of hacker groups to expose the individuals portrayed in the videos. Impunity is what police used to feel. The right to impunity has been removed from their arsenal.
I could buy another?
Buy another lawsuit?
No anything but bulk up a lawyers wallet
Good point, if you have not been beaten by oppressive officials.
A beating is repressive no matter where it comes from,official or unofficial.
Clearly.
[Removed]
Your concept of excess force falls far below what is legal and accepted and acceptable. To date you couldn't find 10 'righteous' lawsuits.
You and I are not to determine what is righteous and what is not. That is for juries. You are familiar with the idea of a jury?
Yes. I'm also familiar with right and wrong and black and white and common sense and nonsense. "Stay on the sidewalk" and you don't stay on the sidewalk, that's on you. And if you wish to characterize correcting self-indulgent, petulant and lawless behavior by police as worthy of a 'righteous lawsuit' you can do that but you should ask yourself is there no point at which you will confront reality. "Your honor, the police wouldn't let us break the law." Please.
Laws are written and passed by politicians, the very same politicians who have been purchased by those who fund the campaigns. The laws written by those politicians reflect not the interest of the people, but of the "people in charge". To call those who break laws written to protect those who purchase politicians, is tantamount to complacency, or worse. To accept that the rule of law is subject to the lawmakers at the time is to realize that not all laws are worthy of enforcement. Does that help?
That's about three hundred words that amount to two: circle jerk. You're high, am I right?
Three hundred words too many for you? The meaning remains the same. Are you able to comprehend it?
Didn't answer the question.
Question? You have no question. Can you think of one law that needed changing and received the change?
The question was "You're high, am I right?"
That is your big discussion? Three words may suit your needs better.
Didn't answer the question. Again.
In fact, that you didn't even remember the question probably already answers it.
Laws are written and passed by politicians, the very same politicians who have been purchased by those who fund the campaigns. The laws written by those politicians reflect not the interest of the people, but of the "people in charge". To call those who break laws written to protect those who purchase politicians, is tantamount to complacency, or worse. To accept that the rule of law is subject to the lawmakers at the time is to realize that not all laws are worthy of enforcement. Does that help?
I am sorry you have such difficulty.
Hey there confuse christian hippy, Greatful Dead, Geddy Lee wannabe guy. How the hell is your psychopathic ass doing. Off your meds and back for more huh?
Yeah, that reads like I'm off MY meds.
Well by your paterns, you are either john bassist or thrasy. So far I assumed you were john but I could be wrong.
[Removed]
The coffers you talk about are from the taxpayers.. has nothing to do with the wealth of a community. You only hurt the ones you claim to represent with this kind of thinking.
No, on this he has a point, although he could have articulated it better. The way I see it, the process he's describing goes a bit like this: cop beats protester. Protester gets himself an expensive lawyer and brings suit against the cop and the community that operates the PD involved. The lawsuit winds up costing the community a ton of money and garbage pickup, pothole repairs, etc. wind up getting cut back to pay the judgement, The community resents the protester, but isn't exactly enamored with the cop either, New policy: if someone files an excessive force/police brutality lawsuit and we can't get it thrown out early on (i.e. it did happen and it was somewhat blatant) then you're on you're own. There are a few test cases, but overall within a year or two the number of brutality incidents drop like a rock.
It's not the perfect way to fix things, and in some senses it does involve deliberately inflicting collateral damage on the community (which is generally not something I'm fond of overall, but in certain cases is necessary). My thing is that as long as police know they can use excessive physical force on peaceful protesters and not be called to account for it you're going to see a persistent pattern of police abuse in charged situations, and that needs to stop. If the cop knows that there are potentially serious consequences, both for him and for the community he dedicates his life to serving, if he crosses a given line then he'll be far less likely to cross it no matter how tempting it gets.
This isn't so much about "cop bad, me good" as it is about establishing a reasonable series of checks and balances that apply to all sides. If the protesters get out of line and break the law, the cop has a legal right to set them straight, and that shouldn't change. The point of allowing and in some cases encouraging lawsuits is that a similar set of checks must apply to the police; if they get overzealous in their enforcement of order and break the law, then the cop needs to be set straight the same as the protester who breaks the law needs to be set straight.
Thank you for your concise interpretation. It is appreciated.
Agreed, his articulation stinks. Granted " some " police are heavy handed, but on that same note, so are some of the protesters. This is hardly the first time the NYPD has had to handle crowds, and frankly I think they did what they had to do to keep people in check.
Ive watched many live feeds of different protests all over the country. What went on in Oakland was a disgrace to the movement. What OWS did on New Years eve was nuts. How were the cops supposed to respond when you have people screaming and cursing in the thier faces? Blowing airhorns and screaming at 4 am in the residential neighborhoods of downtown is going to bring a real police presence. I didnt see any brutality, arrests yes, but that seems to be part of what the movement wants. Afterall they apparently have a bail fund of 100K. Man, could I think of so many great things to do with that kinda loot other than bail.
And yes the community pays for all this extra police OT and the court cases and the cleanups. That community being myself and others who live here in NY, as well as every other community where there is an occupy presence. Unfortunately we have become a society of lawsuits, just keeps the money tied up and clogs the system. And doesn't bring the unity and cohesiveness this movement needs.
Some of the stuff that OWS and its affiliates did was stuff that would have earned them a crack upside the head from me let alone the cops, and I think that things would have gone much better if they had received a crack upside the head from any sort of higher-up before going out there and doing those things. OWS needs to realize that having a few valid overall points is not an excuse for gratuitously acting like a douche in public, nor is it license to throw common sense out the window.
Then, on the other hand, I see the crap that went down at UC Davis, and I saw the kettlings and gassings and beatings elsewhere, and I want to make public and painful examples out of the instigators in those incidents. That's not stupidity, that's not just being a douche in public because you think you can, that's gleefully abusing people and hiding behind a badge afterward and that kind of behavior deserves a trip to the gallows.
I agree that lawsuits aren't the ideal way to settle these issues, but unless you have some means of redress for people who are legitimately being abused it's just going to get more and more out of hand until people start taking matters into their own hands, and I doubt that anyone wants to see that happen.
I come from the world of the old peaceful actions. I boycott things and companies I feel are harmful to the environment and people. I believe in charity begins at home, meaning my community. I believe in standing up for what is right and letting the powers to be ,know when thier actions just plain suck ( gov't).
I don't think violence is the answer on any level , violence begets violence.
Yes of course there are a few cases of true brutality, and of course those instances should and must be addressed, and those who perpetrated the abuse must be held accountable. I do think that OWS needs to redefine thier actions, rethink the hows and whys of what really needs to be done. And at what cost to themselves and the communties.
Generally speaking, I'm hardly fond of violence myself (it's inefficient, distasteful, brutish, and tends to create a lot of unnecessary and morally staining collateral damage) and that's why I believe in lawsuits. Idiocy needs to be dealt with in-house before it happens, and if there's a pattern then that pattern needs to be addressed as such as soon as possible rather than trying to deal with the collateral damage and the black eye after the fact.
Brutality is an interesting phenomenon; if you nip it in the bud then it ceases to be a big deal, but when you get someone who's gotten used to being able to beat on whomever he chooses and doesn't see why anyone has the right to say anything then you have a serious problem. I'm not saying all cops who beat on protesters are this, nor am I even denying that sometimes certain groups need to be sat down hard (although again, this should be happening in-house rather than onsite at protests), but what I'm saying is the ones that are will only stop if they pay badly for their actions, and I'd rather they get set straight via a lawsuit than by more physical methods (but even the latter is better than not setting that group straight at all).
I am in agreement 100%. More in house training needs to be done across the board. Both cops and protesters.
I order no riot police to deny rights to anyone. Those who do, deserve not the position they are in. The very community needs to suffer for the actions of elected officials abusing power. The people then elect a smarter official. Repeat.
Oh brother..
You disagree with the voting thing?
No matter who is in office in any town or city, there will always be the police dept who are paid by the taxpayers who live there. And there will always be laws.
Yep. When laws are broken by those elected to enforce them, what is a populace to do? Ideas welcome.
And when laws are broken by OWS? Nothing will change with the actions being taken now.
When there is a cohesive group and message and solutions that dont entail breaking laws and creating a nuisance, then people will rally around.
When bad people write laws, good people will break them.
That sounds like a fortune cookie. And is just as useful. Who decides what is a "good" law and who is a "bad" person? You have the right to protest. The government has the responsibility to see that the protest is conducted safely and the authority to limit its longevity. I think the laws concerning protests are "good" in that they apply to the KKK as well as OWS. But when it's time to stop - stop. To not do so is "bad" people breaking "good" laws. If you feel breaking the law worthwhile, why complain and resist arrest? The police are not there to hurt you, but they will if you make them. You want to be civilly-disobedient but don't want to admit you ARE being disobedient, claiming some imaginary right that says you get to do what you want because you are a "good" person. "Good" Luck with that.
P.S. Try a Billy Jack quote: "When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law - just a fight for survival."
I love the fortune cookie reference . You have said it all in your post.
That fight for survival is a no holds barred, all hands on deck, last man standing fight. Laws need not apply when eradicating corruption from society. Perhaps a Dylan quote may clear it up. "The law of the jungle and sea are your only teachers."
For quotes and a source, I prefer Lincoln: "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
What to do with castles built upon the bones of the oppressed? Shall they be allowed to remain while the houseless builds his hovel?
Bad people write laws? And good people break them ? You wanna be a little more specific? There are literally 1000's of laws in this country.. defined by state, city, catagory and so forth.
Start here.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
No thanks.. I was looking for something more specific from you. The endless links and quotes have grow old.
Your lack of interest in this one law shows what little interest you have in making the world any better. Please discuss what this act means to you.
You asked for a specific law that needs re-unfucking. I gave you one. You are not interested in learning about it, yet you are swift to express your judgment.
Please don't assume what I want to learn or already know. I dont judge, thats not my job, I do however voice my opinion. It may not always be the popular opinion, but it is mine nonetheless.
Opinions based on ignorance are worthless. That is my opinion. I gave you an example, you flatly denied a willingness to show knowledge, yet you expect your opinion to have credence. Are you kidding?
Ahh yes, thats right Im ignorant and my opinion is worthless. Thats exactly why this movement is not gaining any credibility, because you are too busy belittling people who don't agree with you. Lets see how far all your pseudo intellectualism gets you.