You just need to drum up a story about tranny bathrooms or give deplorables someone to hate to have them vote against their own interests, in this case keeping bad cops that cost us money
MAGAtards arrest man over being black
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
You just need to drum up a story about tranny bathrooms or give deplorables someone to hate to have them vote against their own interests, in this case keeping bad cops that cost us money
Yeah, I'm not even thinking about getting MAGA on board. First of all, they think Chauvin was following standard police procedures and Floyd died, because he's a drug addict. Obviously all you have to do is squeeze your neck for 10 seconds to know that's complete bullshit, but nevertheless they're convinced. If Floyd's family only got $3 million + all court fees, I would think that's more than a fair amount based on what the average person makes, how long they're expected to live, the cost of support, etc. You can say a life is worth an infinite amount of money, but then there would be no money for anything else. Some people think that everybody in his family should have enough money so that they never have to work again, but I disagree. Like I said, I don't think you should necessarily win the lottery, because you've been wronged.
The officer had his knee on his shoulder and back. He should be let go immediately.
The whole point is the cops are not accountable for their actions, training, oversight and are being asked to self police. If cops get multiple reports and still go out there with no action, now it is not just the cop but the supervisors and Chief. Seems that no one in power is getting the hint to make training changes or punish bad cops so shit still keeps happening. City keeps payng until they wake up.
Ok seriously... just admit you know nothing about the law.
What happened when a Walmart employee slammed his truck into Tracey Morgan's car? Tell me ... go google it.
Now google respondent superior...
Are you tellling me an assclown working for Walmart can kill someone and put someone near death due to their negligence and the company should not be liable driving a walmart truck on company time? That is not how civil liability works.... you going to sue a driver for killing someone and get $5000 out of his broke ass?
Cities get sued under respondent superior..... it is tort law and makes employers responsible for the trianing and actions of their agents so shit does not happen.
I admit I haven't studied law, but shouldn't it depend on the situation? Walmart is going to insure the vehicle. I would expect them to be sued in that case. However, what if the employee ran somebody over with his own vehicle being late for work? They would have a hard time suing Walmart in that example. Would they try? Maybe. I suspect the outcome isn't certain in that situation.
An employee on his way to work is not on the clock or an employee at that moment or performing a function of his job so you cannot sue his employer based on that fact pattern. the walmart truck is property of walmart and the driver is an employee.
Here's the difference between the private companies and the state. The state makes the laws. The state sets the standards. The judge doesn't get to make up standards for the state. They interpret the laws as written. Punitive fines against the state make no sense as the taxpayers don't vote based on punitive lawsuits. Furthermore, punitive measures are clearly against the 8th Amendment. The 8th Amendment clearly states that "excessive fines" shall not be imposed. Judges not following this clause are not following the Constitution. I realize there's a difference between civil and criminal law, but SCOTUS has ruled that this clause applies to civil cases. The judge can't arbitrarily make up what he wants to give a plaintiff. It has to be based on damages done. MN could theoretically take this to SCOTUS against the Floyd family claiming that the settlement violates the 8th Amendment, but I doubt they will.
What if the driver intentionally ran somebody over with his truck? Now it becomes criminal, the insurance company and Walmart would both fight any civil suits.
No. I'm going on the current US Justice System standard; which was initially derived from the English system.
For centuries, we've had punitive justice.
Our system is also one of fairness. For centuries, victims have collected punitive rewards. If it is to stop, then legislate it. Advocate for a change in the system, rather than attacking one case.
Does it work?
I'm not going to research the pros and cons; but I can speak from a common sense perspective.
I believe punitive settlements etc. allow the judicial system to make penalties proportionate to one's ability to pay. Corporations can be penalized more for the same infraction; while penalizing Mom-and-Pop businesses less. Both have the same, proportional, economic effect.
A one-size-fits-all will make monetary penalties meaningless to the wealthy and large businesses; or make them exorbitant to most everyone else.
The ability to adjust damages is helpful, imo.
A meaningful conclusion would require more research than I care to entertain, at this time. I'm simply not that interested as I'm OK with the status quo for now.
...ok...
Body cams are better than no body cams. They are not perfect, and need support. What if an office turns it off? Erases it? Destroys it? They need laws, and punishments, to support them.
Of course crime won't be zero. But it should see a reduction with surveillance, actual damages, AND punitive damages. So we disagree on punitive damages.
Show me the judicial plan that doesn't include punitive damages. I'd have to see the replacement before I'd even entertain getting rid of something.
That's kinda like kicking people off ObamaCare ... without having a well prepared replacement ready to go. Makes no sense at all.
What's the value of a human life? How do we know that the victim would not have gotten lucky in Vegas, with the lottery, at the race track?
How do you put a value on pain and suffering.
As long as lawyers are paid based on the judgments/settlements; and as long as lawyers become judges and politicians; and as long as people want the ability to win a big settlement when it's 'their turn,' getting rid of punitive damages will be a steep, uphill battle.
And my guess is that if any change does occur, it'll be semantical. They will simply bake punitive damage dollar amounts into: pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. etc.