Why not at least force the police to compensate Diallo’s family, restore the property owner for any damage from their assault, and hold those in charge of the police accountable for the slaughter of a peaceful honest man who was doing nothing more than pursuing his own happiness in his own way?
Care to find an online account of the incident? I’ve heard lots of second-hand accounts, but I’m not clear on what everyone involved claim happened.
Here ya go, Ryan. Court TV has a lot on it.
http://courttv.com/
Who’s to say most of what the OP asks for won’t still happen? Just like OJ, we can still have a civil suit, and probably will. The officers responsible will most likely end up having to compensate Diallo’s family. I suppose if the property owner wants to sue then the same would apply there too.
As far as holding “those in charge of the police accountable for the slaughter of a peaceful honest man who was doing nothing more than pursuing his own happiness in his own way,” this is pretty vague. By held accountable do you want “those in charge” fired, imprisoned, or forced to pay money? All we have so far is a decision that the shooters are not criminally liable. This certainly does not close the door on civil suits and people losing their jobs. The cops will probably have to find another line of work.
Either the cops did something wrong, or they did not. If they were wrong, they should be convicted. If not, they should not be punished.
Their guilt aside, it would set a dangerous precedent to force restitution to be paid by police officers. they do not have the means to cover such expenses, no insurance would cover them and if cops are to be held personally liable, we may have trouble finding enough cops.
In general (I won’t get into the specifics, as it varies state to state), officials carrying out their official duties, especially police and firefighters, are not held liable for negligent acts that injure others. The rationale usually expressed by the courts and legislatures is that, if an accident could lead to financial liability, the result would be restrained efforts by those in question, causing less effective policing/firefighting, etc.
A similar argument is used to preclude tort lawsuits for constitutional violations, which is the usual alternative offered for the exclusionary rule of evidence obtained unconstitutionally.
[quote]
Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi:
**Either the cops did something wrong, or they did not. If they were wrong, they should be convicted. If not, they should not be punished. **
[quote]
Criminal liability and civil liability are two completely different concepts. It is quite possible to be found civilly liable without committing any crime. Unlike the Rodney King and OJ cases, I think that this is a situation in which a civil case is more than just an end rund around Double Jeopardy. Even if they didn’t intend to kill Diallo, they are responsible for his death. I’m not sure how society should enforce that responsibility, however. Perhaps a civil trial is a good idea, perhaps not.
Why? When doctors screw up, they can be sued. Most doctors have malpractive insurance. If police officers can’t afford insurance, the police department could pay for basic coverage.
Diallo did something wrong, it cost him his life.
Officer says: Freeze, this is the police, put your hands up!
Diallo responds: (rumbles through his pockets until he quickly turns, holding an object that resembles a pistol from a distance)
That’s a big no-no in New York City. I respect those officers. The family of Diallo can file whatever they wish, but they don’t deserve a cent from those cops.
R.J.D.
Interesting version of the “blame the victim” argument RJD. Of course it’s wrong. Diallo, or anyone else, doesn’t deserve to die because their actions were misinterpreted by other people. Diallo wasn’t killed because he pulled his wallet out of his pocket; he was killed because several policemen shot him.
On a seperate note, the principle DSYoung described is called indemnification. Basically, it says that if you are acting as a representative of a government body, the government will assume any financial liability that result from your actions.
I definitely agree that either the police officers were responsible if they did not follow thier training or the city is responsible if the training it gives its police is to shoot when they only think that the suspect has a weapon.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
Society doesn’t work if cops are reluctant to fire their weapons. (If the suspect has a gun pointed or a wallet.) That would only result in more deaths of police officers. And a higher rate of crime. That affects me.
Cops should be immune to civil lawsuits, also while in duty, it affects THEM, protecting ME.
R.J.D.
RJD, they’re obliged to protect everyone, not just you.
Was Diallo exempt from this protection? What was his crime?
Next time, it could be you.
Voted as: The poster you’d most like to meet.
I demand a recount.
His crime: blatant stupidity.
If I was in his position and a cop told me to put my hands up, I would. Without second thought.
Either he hoped to take a flesh wound and sue New York state, or he thought his wallet was a shield. Either way, his hands were not above his head.
R.J.D.
If momentary stupidity were a crime we’d really have a prison overcrowding problem!
I believe the jury made the proper decision in the criminal case. However, as pointed out above, in civil cases not only is the degree of proof required much different, but the parties’ responsibilities and liabilities are different also. I see no contradiction in saying that while the City’s agents may not have had any criminal responsibility in the case, the City itself may bear a heavy civil liability if it had not adequately trained them or instituted proper procedures to govern their actions. And if Amadou Diallo was partially responsible for the incident, that does not automatically exonerate the City. Many civil cases involve apportioning relative responsibility between plaintiff and defendant.
I read column or news story yesterday claiming that the NYC Administration agreed in principal that it owed a settlement to the Diallo family, and would only contest what they would consider excessives damages. I don’t know if that is really true, but hope it is.
Two points:
-
Stupidity is not a capital offence.
-
And if it were, it shouldn’t be up to the police to impose the sentence.
One of my friends is a cop. He said these guys panicked. Cops are not supposed to panic.
Voted as: The poster you’d most like to meet.
I demand a recount.
Don’t disect “His crime: blatant stupidity” too deeply. It was a sarcastic statement made to make a point.
(If I was serious, I’d be dead.)
R.J.D.
Was your friend on the jury?
Did any of the 4 police officers tell your friend that they panicked?
Cops aren’t supposed to litter. Cops aren’t supposed to sleep on the job. But panicking is not a voluntary condition.
R.J.D.
Are you serious?
No, my friend was not on the jury. Were you?
A cop that panics is okay with you? These guys shot off 41 bullets at one man.
Shit, I hope you’re not a cop. And if you are, let us know when you’re on duty, so we know when to stay inside.
Voted as: The poster you’d most like to meet.
I demand a recount.
41 bullets at a man who did not respond to the cops when he was asked to put his hands up.
The jury’s verdict: not guilty. It was a racially impartial jury, too.
The cops are in NO WAY responsible for any damages.
R.J.D.
[quote]
41 bullets at a man who did not respond to the cops when he was asked to put his hands up.
The jury’s verdict: not guilty. It was a racially impartial jury, too.
The cops are in NO WAY responsible for any damages.
[quote]
No. The jury determined that the police did not break any laws. The jury was not asked (since this was a criminal prosecution) to determine whether the police were responsible for damages. Those are separate issues.
Mr. Diallo, by the way, did respond to the police. Unfortunately, he responded by trying to provide identification. (That is certainly a capital crime.) The police response indicates a pretty poor level of training. Given the evidence (as it appears) I agree with the decision of the jury. The constant need to blame Mr. Diallo for his death is, however, at best, unseemly.
Tom~