Comments
PauI_MuadDib t1_jd7gikg wrote
The NYPD's sex crime unit is actually currently under federal investigation. They failed to perform basic investigations, misreported sexual assaults as less serious crimes or intimidated/coerced victims into not reporting their sexual assaults because the detectives wanted to cash their paychecks without doing any actual work.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/feds-probing-nypd-special-victims-division-in-nyc-doj-says/.
I notice Adams has done nothing to address this. I guess attempting to lower the crime rate doesn't include sex crimes.
All of this detectives should be charged for OT fraud and defrauding taxpayers since they happily collected their salary while refusing to do basic work. What the fuck were they doing instead of working???
mowotlarx t1_jd7io0o wrote
>What the fuck were they doing instead of working???
In my experience, what they were doing was trying to convince people not to report their sexual assaults because it's too much paperwork. I guess we can call "intimidating victims not to report crimes" to be a kind of work. It occupies their time, anyway
iamlejo t1_jd83f1s wrote
Rape kits aren’t tested because cops are rapists
Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_jd92p3e wrote
All you need to do is so voting for Democrats.
They have done nothing to stop police brutality but morons keep voting them in.
mowotlarx t1_jd98npp wrote
Ah yes, because we all know Republicans love to hold cops accountable. /s
[deleted] t1_jd8xa0h wrote
[deleted]
mowotlarx t1_jd98ur1 wrote
No, actually. Cops are civil servants with weapons. I don't care how large or small an infraction is, they need to be held accountable for ALL OF IT. There is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit against a defacto military force we allow to police and manhandle citizens. If your solution to the problem is to just let cops get away with bad behavior for free, you're not actually trying to solve anything.
SakanaToDoubutsu t1_jd5xv47 wrote
So hypothetical question, let's say an officer shoots someone and assume they are 100% in the right, if the family brings a wrongful death lawsuit against the city what would it cost to litigate that case to completion?
I say this because settling out of court is super common simply because the cost of litigation is often way more expensive than the actual amount of relief the plaintiff is looking for. To use the case of the 300 in the Bronx, trying hundreds of civil rights cases would cost the city hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per case, so it's way cheaper just to pay everyone out $21,500 and move on.
creativepositioning t1_jd67ae6 wrote
The city has its own law department. They get paid a salary, regardless of whether or not the city settles.
Crimsonwolf1445 t1_jd7zclk wrote
The city also pays all the court costs for a trial
creativepositioning t1_jd8eurw wrote
Lol how much do you think those are? They are defendants, they aren't paying filing fees.
Crimsonwolf1445 t1_jd8gi5k wrote
They are also the entire legal system.
The city pays for the whole courtroom and trial.
creativepositioning t1_jd8q7eq wrote
The judges are salaried, the staff are salaried, they show up every day regardless of whether its a criminal or civil trial. I'm aware the system costs money. However, you are making an unfounded assumption that actually litigating some cases would result in any meaningful differences in expenditures by the city, when it's likely NOT the case.
Crimsonwolf1445 t1_jd9kp96 wrote
It would literally create more trials and court sessions it would absolutely cost more in tax dollars
creativepositioning t1_jd9wvle wrote
How many do you think people are asking the city to litigate here? it was clearly quite a few, no need to be this obtuse.
Crimsonwolf1445 t1_jda07wq wrote
No reason to litigate if you cit them a check. Thats how the city has handled the issue.
They have staff run the numbers and have come to the conclusion that litigation costs would be more than settlements and therefore they just settle.
How many WANT to pursue a trial? Or how many sue in general?
Either way i dont have numbers but i imagine its absurdly high.
Anecdotally ive seen lawsuits for outright lies get the person a few grand with little push back from the city even with mountains of video evidence.
creativepositioning t1_jda3tm4 wrote
Those cases probably just involve facts that the police don't want to come out through discovery - like a video showing the accuser is a liar while simultaneously being a record of incredibly poor behavior on the part of the officer. Otherwise I don't buy the settlements.
I was referring to the people here saying the city should litigate the worst of these cases, as if that'd be cheaper than settling them. In that sense, we probably don't disagree. My point was more that, if the city had to litigate a particularly high profile/risk case, it'd probably not be significantly more expensive for the city as compared to a normal party in a litigation.
Crimsonwolf1445 t1_jda4kn9 wrote
No video outright proving innocence and that the accuser was lying.
It was sinply cheaper to pay a few thousand dollars to the person that fight the lawsuit.
There was no financial benefit to winning. They gain nothing
It actually makes perfect sense when looking at things from a number crunching standpoint.
Once you realize the city gains absolutely nothing by crushing people in court for these lawsuits the strategy of just settling out of court makes perfect sense.
Most of the people that make these false claims and sue are penniless so its not like you can countersue.
Buddynorris t1_jd7n0cn wrote
Because the city automatically settles with people who sue. This has been mentioned 2827663828162 times and people still literally come on here and say any other reason but the one that's true. Classic reddit.
Turbulent_Link1738 t1_jd7pclc wrote
Basically. The city is saying these millions are worth not even fighting the cases. It’s a lose lose. Settle and people complain about the payout. Fight the case and win, people complain because the cost of trial is actually more than the settlement. There’s no way to get that money back and the city is too spineless to dismiss bullshit cases.
[deleted] t1_jd83hir wrote
[removed]
brownredgreen t1_jda6ikn wrote
This is a simple lie.
Do mods remove misinfo? Cause this is misinfo.
Buddynorris t1_jdarbuq wrote
No, it really isn't. And if you had any knowledge whatsoever of how lawsuits work vs the city, you would know this. So please carry on with your b.s elsewhere.
PauI_MuadDib t1_jd7h4ky wrote
Consider supporting NY Senate Bill 182. It would repeal qualified immunity throughout the entirety of NYS.
Call/email your senator and tell them to vote for SB 182. Hochul has said she'd veto it, but the bill's sponsor (Sen. Robert Jackson) has said Dems are prepared to use their supermajority to override her. So every vote is going to count on this.
Croweslen t1_jdgy2y7 wrote
No one understands qualified immunity and it's hilarious. For example, if a cop did something that is againsts the law, such as an illegal search. And its prooven in a court of law that it was illegal. The victim can then sue the cop personally. Qualified immunity will not protect the cop.
If the cop acted legally, in good faith and did nothing wrong, then they victim can only sue the city due to qualified immunity protecting the cop.
Qualified immunity isnt an absolute shield against any lawsuit. It only covers the cop if they did everything legally.
knockatize t1_jd5u34v wrote
Because the lawmakers tell the police to focus on what churns up the most fine revenue, or else. Then the lawmakers play dumb when a tragedy happens.
Ok-Hunt6574 t1_jd6bagv wrote
Because police have qualified immunity and other ridiculous restrictions to accountability along with the thin blue line of officers who rarely report others abuse. Police don't give a fuck because their freedoms and finances are rarely in the line. Unlike any other profession.
Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jd7fz0u wrote
What? Ambulance chasers? Frivolous lawsuits? A policy of settling quietly rather than litigating? A jury pool that has bias against police and/or sees lawsuits as a type of lottery? Not here! Never! /s
radicalguru t1_jd8z5hw wrote
are people misbehaving to try to win lawsuits? maybe need better training? is lack of respect for authorities causing people to be more combative?
namedafteracartoon2 t1_je55pl7 wrote
Remember folks ... 1992 city hall riots. When a civilian complaint review board was proposed by Dinkins. A bunch of drunk off duty cops mobbed around city hall calling Dinkins a N***er and wanting to lynch him, backed by Giuliani and PBA. Folks have forgotten about sadly ....
Crimsonwolf1445 t1_jd7z8bt wrote
The city’s default settlements regardless of merit.
Its supposed to be cheaper for the city than paying the legal fees for fighting all these lawsuits but it pretty much sends the message that you will get an “easy” payday by just suing
[deleted] t1_jd83icm wrote
[removed]
drpvn t1_jd4qn88 wrote
Propublica is usually very good but this is some incoherent shit.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jd4xaip wrote
Stop the policy of settling every case and start fighting some cases.
Then people will stop bringing frivolous suits in hope for a settlement.
Then, for the cases that become actual losses in court, use that loss to fire the officers involved “for cause”. Can’t do that with a mere settlement.
mowotlarx t1_jd5acsz wrote
Or...NYPD could stop infringing on the civil rights of citizens? That sounds a lot easier than further infringing on the rights of NYC residents by "tossing" cases.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jd6bkoh wrote
The status quo is the always the easiest. And we all know how well that’s going.
What is necessary to change the status quo is also hard:
- Fire employees committing misconduct.
- Fix the rule that need fixing.
- Fight the lawsuits.
Doing 3 will help expose and solve 1 and 2 at the same time.
1600hazenstreet t1_jd53sgc wrote
Well, you can’t fire someone just because the city loss in a lawsuit.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jd6ax7f wrote
The evidence from the lawsuit plus judgement can be used as a clear just cause for firing someone. No?
It can also show actual damages caused to the city by the employee misconduct.
A mere settlement doesn’t have the same pull.
1600hazenstreet t1_jd6gi0i wrote
Are you even familiar with unions and civil service? This might happen in private sector, but definitely not how it works in public sector. It takes the city government months to years, just to fire someone in civil service.
DamagedSquare t1_jd6xb9q wrote
A lawsuit is not the same as a criminal trial the amount of evidence needed to find someone guilty in a civil case is much lower than that of a criminal trial. Civil court you are found guilty based on a preponderance of evidence which means something is more likely than not. Criminal trials guilt is found without a reasonable doubt which means it is absolute. Think about the OJ Simpson trial he was found innocent in criminal court yet found to be liable for damages when he was taken to civil court. So a police officer can not be fired if found liable in a civil case because the evidence is not found without a reasonable doubt.
While I'm sure we'd all love to see a bad cop fired it sets bad legal precedent to do it since that judgement can now be ruled in other cases not even involving police misconduct.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jd7ru5c wrote
Sure, but a settlement is even weaker than a preponderance of evidence, right?
The result of a civil lawsuit should be the stepping stones to a criminal case against the officer.
Sickpup831 t1_jd7tft1 wrote
The problem is that people sue the cops even when the cops did everything they were trained to do. And sometimes they win. So you can’t fire your employee for following orders.
For example, the lady that refused to wear a mask in the subway system, was asked to leave, refused, put her hands on cops and they arrested her in front of her child. She’s suing for TEN MILLION DOLLARS. And obviously there’s a lawyer out there that think she has a case and trying to get a million dollar payday for himself vs a city employed lawyer maybe making 100k win or lose.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jd7tq1y wrote
That’s a fair argument
Mrmilkymilkster t1_jd8psuv wrote
Downvoted for logic. Not allowed on Reddit, sorry.
mowotlarx t1_jd5a864 wrote
We know why they keep happening. We let the NYPD do whatever they want with no consequences. Remember the Civilian Review Board? We created it, I guess. But did we get them power? Did we free them from intimidation from the Thin Blue Line? No.
The NYPD should be under investigation by the Feds at this point. Dissolved and rebuilt. It's too rotten.