Baton Bob Receives $20,000 Settlement For Coerced Facebook Post 201
McGruber writes: After arresting him during a June 2013 street performance, Atlanta Police Officers forced costumed street performer "Baton Bob" to make a pro-police statement on his Facebook page before they would allow him to be released on bond. Social media coverage of the incident triggered a six-month internal police investigation into the arrest. Atlanta Police Officer H.J. Davis was given a one-day suspension, then resigned from the Atlanta Police department a few weeks later. Atlanta Police Lt. Jeffrey Cantin received a five-day suspension for "violating responsibilities of a supervisor".
Baton Bob also filed a federal lawsuit against the city, arguing that officers made a wrongful arrest that violated, well, nearly every constitutional right you can name. Those included Jamerson's "right to free speech, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his right to privacy." The City of Atlanta's legal department reviewed the case and determined that a $20,000 settlement would "be in the best interest of the city" rather than fighting the claims in court.
Baton Bob also filed a federal lawsuit against the city, arguing that officers made a wrongful arrest that violated, well, nearly every constitutional right you can name. Those included Jamerson's "right to free speech, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his right to privacy." The City of Atlanta's legal department reviewed the case and determined that a $20,000 settlement would "be in the best interest of the city" rather than fighting the claims in court.
The song remains the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw the Atlanta taxpayers while Davis and Cantin skate. Typical.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think cities would care more given how stretched their budgets are becoming of late.
Re:The song remains the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Cities will go completely bankrupt before they even think of reining in their police.
Re: (Score:3)
The policeman camera is the best reign of all, and many cities are implementing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Use the offer of settlement as potential acknowledgement of guilt. Granted, that last part will never fly but make the city go thru the steps to show such to be the case.
An offer to settle is not an acknowledgement of guilt, and trying to present it as such in court would likely result in sanctions for misconduct. Settlement negotiations are almost always covered by confidentiality agreements, and judges take violations of those agreements very seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
which makes the whole settlement system bullshit.
also it's common that through the settlement process the crimes committed turn into whole other crimes. and what does that mean? that the statistics will never be correct.
besides though, the dismissal of the officers involved is an admission of guilt.
Re:The song remains the same (Score:4, Informative)
which makes the whole settlement system bullshit.
It makes the settlement system workable. No one is going to engage in good faith negotiations if any offer made can be used against them in court, or in the newspapers.
also it's common that through the settlement process the crimes committed ...
This is a civil case, not a criminal case.
the dismissal of the officers involved is an admission of guilt.
The officers were not dismissed. One of them quit. The other was suspended for 5 days.
Re: (Score:3)
civil? huh? why not a criminal case.
prosecutor should be prosecuted for not bringing a criminal case then...
and it's used in newspapers now already against them. the reason they would do a settlement is to get off cheaper.
anyways, settlements are common in criminal cases as well. the whole settlement system needs to go - it's a joke internationally and seemingly makes the prosecution first try to up the charges so they can settle down so they don't need to go to court and instead can blackma.. "negotiat
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The song remains the same (Score:5, Insightful)
20k is child's play. It isn't the value of his post, it is the duress in which it was forced to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Should've been more like 20,000,000
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?
Re: (Score:3)
Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?
The same people who pay for everything, all the time...
Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time police misdeeds settlement be paid for from Police pension funds, if they lose a case, I suggest 50% from the officer responsible, and the other 50% from his collegues to help incentivise them to police themselves.
Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds (Score:5, Insightful)
Police accountability? Are you joking? Then they might be afraid to shoot unarmed people to death, and they might be afraid that their fellow officers might also hold them accountable. And then they'd be scared of the people! And we can't have that, or else they might shoot unarmed people to death!
Re: (Score:3)
I make mistakes at work, and my business sucks it up, how is this different?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They won't quit as such - they need jobs like everybody else. But you will get police apathy. Bank robbery? Police comes the next day looking for fingerprints or whatever. They won't show up for any kind of action - can't risk shooting a bystander or make a wrongful arrest. Or pissing of anyone with a good lawyer.
Of course, cops must be seen doing something, so you'll see lots of tickets for illegal parking and such. Lots of cops willing to do motivational speeches at schools. But very little use of force -
Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds (Score:4, Insightful)
Domestic disputes, one of the most dangerous duties for police, will get slower responses. People, especially bettered women and children as the most frequent victims, will die. Those are often cases where tempers are already flaring, and blaming, harassing, or trying to sue the officer who escorts a victim to shelter or helps the victim file charges is commonplace. Those are the kinds of cases where _limited_ immunity for the officers on the scene makes good sense.
There is a useful description of such immunity at http://www.criminaldefenselawy... [criminalde...lawyer.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cops escalate domestic disputes and get people hurt/killed.
The solution to domestic violence is highly publicized safe houses with armed guards that victims will A) know about and B) be able to make it to, whether or not they have car access. And to fight stigmas associated with being abused ("she's damaged goods", etc).
The solution is NOT cops coming to the house and escalating the incident.
Re: (Score:2)
If you make really obvious mistakes at work, and more than once, you might eventually be fired for bad performance.
Which is exactly what should happen in this case:
Even with only a high school education, cops should be able to understand the difference between arresting someone for assault and using extortion to get a pro-police statement on Facebook. If they don't get that or simply ignore Baton Bob's rights, they are unfit for duty. Get rid of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe its because they are trained to shoot center mass. You know the area with most of our important organs.
Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds (Score:5, Insightful)
We do need to find some solution that holds the police themselves financially responsible for their misdeeds, otherwise the ones who behave recklessly have no incentive to stop doing so.
I suggest 50% from the officer responsible, and the other 50% from his collegues to help incentivise them to police themselves
I'm afraid that taking settlements out of the pension fund might have the opposite effect of what's intended. If you think it's hard getting cops to report or testify against one another now, imagine how bad it would be if their collective retirement benefits were at stake. The blue wall of silence would grow ten times as tall and ten times as thick. Officers would never speak ill of one another, knowing that if another officer is found guilty of a crime, their own pension fund takes a hit.
Perhaps it's time we require all police officers to take out insurance policies for this sort of thing. As an example, many states require real estate brokers to maintain an errors and omissions (E&O) insurance policy covering a minimum of $1M. To sell houses. Surely it's not unreasonable that a police officer, authorized to use deadly force under color of law during the course of their job duties, could be made to carry insurance against the mistakes they might make... Mistakes which often have far more severe consequences than messing up a real estate contract.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that it should be required. It would mean that fines like this wouldn't hurt cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it also wouldn't hurt the cops responsible - it would hurt the insurance companies. Considering the severity ...
I would rather suggest each police department be required to maintain a fund to pay out cases like this - and if you cost that fund too much, you are demoted, beyond a high enough barrier - you are automatically fired.
Money in the fund that wasn't needed at the end of the year could perhaps be paid out as bonuses - to reward the good cops, though this would need to be subject to very
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that it would eventually render bad cops uninsurable, and thus, unemployable.
Really, though, these are all suggestions to get around the central issue; cops look out for their own, even in the face of blatantly criminal behavior. It's a cultural issue, more than anything.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as i know the responsibility and malpractice insurance required by doctors and lawyers can be company/clinic level and is not paid directly by "employees" but by the company they work for in most cases.
A much better solution w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember a story about a fire house in CA that didn't want a woman in their ranks. When one was assigned to their house, they treated her abysmally. Sexual harassment, physical hazing, and I'm not talking borderline he said - she said but way over the line. She reported it to the chief who did nothing, and then went to the state. A court awarded her, as I recall, about $2M. Afterwards she returned to the fire house, and the same group of guys did the same thing again. The second time it went to cour
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay Settlments from Police Pension Funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you have any idea how much money the unions spend to elect politicians who will never hold them accountable for things like this?
No, how much do they spend?
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?
So where in the US are the police elected by the local citizens? I've never heard of this happening. It certainly hasn't been the practice in or near any place I've ever lived.
I've also never seen any candidate in any election running on a promise to do "misdeeds", so I've never actually been able to vote for or against a candidate on that basis. It'd be interesting to know where this is done, and why it isn't done where I've lived.
Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers (Score:5, Insightful)
People decry huge settlements and suggest that the victim doesn't "deserve" it.
It's not about deserve. It's about preventing something from happening again. If $20k was in the "best interest of the city", then it wasn't enough.
The cops who did this were fired. Good enough. Their supervisors were suspended...not quite good enough. The Police Chief and his staff, who are ultimately responsible for hiring these people need to be punished. The people who hired the Police Chief need to suffer some consequences to. and the only way you can do that is to piss off the voters. And how do you piss off voters? Take money out of their pockets.
The settlements should be high enough so that everyone's property tax goes up a significant amount for a few years. And on the statements, the reasons should be laid out directly....$150 surcharge to pay for settlement against the city for Police Misconduct.
Only then will you have politicians lose their jobs and the remaining ones decide that it's in the best interest of their careers to hire a chief, who will hire staff, who will correctly train the officers. This goes for all other parts of the government too, not just for police.
Punitive damages is to punish. And the way you punish government or large companies is to take money out of of their pockets.
Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer was not fired. He quit. Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as he's gone. Although I guess quitting will allow him to get another job and do this all over again.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Although I guess quitting will allow him to get another job and do this all over again.
Not necessarily. Georgia is relatively good about decertifying cops [timesfreepress.com] who are fired or resign in lieu of being fired.
Re: (Score:3)
sorely tempted to take the "we could fire you or you could quit" option of quitting.
So he was coerced by the department... kinda ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why our system of punitive damages sucks. It encourages people to game the system in hopes of winning the lawsuit lottery.
He should receive restitution for the damages done. Nothing more. A huge payout to punish the guilty party is not justice.
If large punitive damages are warranted, they shouldn't go to the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides who gets the money?
Who decides on the people that decide?
I think you would be opening a huge can or worms that would result in the money going to people/causes not many people would like. Good chance it ends up going right back to the government via some creative agency naming..."Homeless Mother Aid" or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges, most likely.
You've already opened a huge can of worms by giving the money to one undeserving party. Just because there might be problems to resolve with a better system doesn't mean that there's no point in instituting the better system. Say that they get it wrong half the time. That's still better than today, when they get it wrong every single time.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people want to be have their rights abused, have their faces beaten in, or even killed on the slim chance they can force a settlement from a city's insurance company?
That's the dumbest fucking thing I've seen in quite some time, and this is the Internet.
Re: Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it.
No, that is NOT a problem. That is a benefit of the current system. It incentivizes people to fight back against police abuse. Shifting the benefit away from the VICTIM (which you call the "plaintiff") just means the police will have impunity to do what they want, because no one will have the resources to push back.
Also $20k is not "high". It is way too low. The penalties need to be high enough to sting, not just the police, but also the voters/taxpayers that tolerate their behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Shifting the burden onto the taxpayers only pushes the majority of them further into the hole as the potholes continue to go unfixed and their beater car gets the shit beat out of it. After all, there's not much budget left for the massive amount of roadwork...
You're welcome for the car.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that the taxpayers get fed up and stop voting for the people who are costing them so much money. The Chief of Police is an appointed position (usually by the town council or the mayor), while the Sheriff is elected. Taxpayers have the power to fix the problem, but voter apathy will prevent it from every happening.
Whining about lawyers = dumbfuckery (Score:5, Interesting)
Whining that some money might end up in the hands of lawyers, and out of the hands of abusers (or those who insure abusers), is simply dumbfuckery. Always has been, always will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that's your choice as a taxpayer. But at least you'd be fully informed and know why you taxes are up.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have ultimate responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
But $20,000 for a facebook post might be a new record income for posting.
Common, nobody expects you to read TFA but at least read the 2nd paragraph of the summary. The Facebook post was only one part of it. And like the previous commenter pointed it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a Facebook post, it was because it was under duress, it would have been the same thing in the olden days if it were a letter to the editor or statement to the media.
And anyway, you probably only read the title, because if you had read the summary at all you would have seen that the Facebo
Re: (Score:2)
They should have been fired, arrested, tried, and hopefully convicted. The prosecutor's office works daily with the cops they are unable to oversee them being far to close and familiar.
Re: (Score:2)
The settlement should come straight out of the police retirement fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hitting the retirement fund would change the cop culture of mutual ass-covering in situations like this. Instead of dashcam recordings that mysteriously disappear when a court case impends, you would have cops informing on each other to protect the fund.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Such a group of people I despise. The powers that be want the people to view any incident not in terms of the individual, but rather that person's group, as it is easier to control by group or type rather than many separate and rational individuals.
Re:The group identity bullshit remains the same (Score:4, Funny)
Translation: Another loser blaming everyone else for his inadequacies.
Re: (Score:2)
When the heat's on, you will see hyenas eat one another.
only 20 grand? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
make the cops pay out of pocket
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Make them pay from their pension funds, I suggest 50% from the officer responsible, and the other 50% from his collegues to help incentivise them to police themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the city the cop lives in pay for it out of pocket!
They know who their citizens are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean less than 50% of eligible voters, it's their own damn fault. If you mean less than 50% of total population, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not my fault. I voted for the guy that's honest, hard working, and looking out for my personal interests!
Re: (Score:2)
They were right. I voted for McCain and then we got 8 more years of Bush policies.
Well, I'm torn. (Score:3)
On the other hand, I could really use $20k. I need a new car by next month or I'm fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
While it would be nice to see someone grow a pair and say "Nope, I'm not here for hush money, I'm here for my pound of flesh. So buckle up and prepare for some publicity and federal exposure." it's also hard for me to honestly say I wouldn't turn down a free 20g.
It does seem a bit low though? If it were significantly larger, well, everyone has their price, but 20g is really flying low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuit proceeds are not taxed by the Feds -- the theory being that it's not income, rather it represents an attempt at making you whole after a loss. It's the same theory as your insurance company paying the cash value of your car after you total it. That payment isn't taxed either.
Re: (Score:2)
if you have 20 grams, you should probably give it to gangadude. I bet he'd appreciate it ;)
Re:Well, I'm torn. (Score:4)
What's that, about $4-5,000 per amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
The value of rights are not adjusted for inflation, sorry.
You're in if you ... (Score:2)
... use your smartphone to video cops like these.
$20,000 is less than going to court (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
not far enough. (Score:3)
All the officers involved should be recorded being tazed over and over again and the video put on youtube.
Re:not far enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think the people who hire cops don't bother to check with previous employers and do Google searches on new applicants, you need your head examined. These two are done. They're not going to work as cops ever again.
Re:not far enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would not bet that way. There are pnumerous private security companies, and even mercenary companies listed as "security contractors", who pay very nice hiring bonuses for trained policemen. And for tough districts short of capable policemen, such as Ferguson, Missouri this year, they're going to be taking whatever they can get.
Re: (Score:3)
A few seconds searching Google for "fired police rehired" turns up hundreds of examples, and rehiring as a matter of policy or as a result of arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not far enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
They may not work for a police department again, but there are probably many places where they can be hired as a sherriff's deputy. Even working as a police officer isn't beyond the realm of possiblity -- none of them was fired.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The guy who shot Tamir Rice was fired from his previous (police) job because of an inability to follow basic instructions and dangerous loss of composure during weapons training. And yet he got hired, again, as a policeman. And then he killed a 12 year old. So, I would suggest maybe you're the one in need of a head exam.
Fake edit: CAPTCHA is "killed", oddly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, these guys could get another job. It's not like people line up to be cops. Low pay, high risk. That's why it attracts the violent wife-beaters and such.
Re:not far enough. (Score:5, Informative)
That's not as true as you might think. Here are the most dangerous jobs (# of deaths per 100,000):
More recently, policing has gotten even lessdangerous.
And yes, people do in fact "line up" to be police officers. I live a block and a half away from the police academy here in Chicago, and I've seen the lines that form when the police exam is taken. It's a lot of people. And as far as "low reward", that's debatable too. We're talking about a lifetime guaranteed pension after 20 years (not a 401k, but an actual pension. You have that at your job?
Re: (Score:3)
Always surprises me that Aircraft pilots are so high on that list considering how safe air travel is. The rest make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check injury rates, not just fatalities. According to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/o... [bls.gov], the only work with higher national injury rates is nursing care.
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of injuries to police are from routine traffic accidents.
My point was that the old chestnut about how police officers "put their lives on the line every day" is simply more true about truck drivers or garbage collectors than it is about cops.
The "high risk/low reward" is just not that true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if any other police force would hire them after this.
Not for what they did, of course, but because they got caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Why not have the Atlanta P.D. place a pro-Baton-Bob statement on their Facebook page and other social media accounts, prominently stating how he's a valued citizen and a community treasure? That would at least be more proportionate, even it's not wholly accurate.
Does he also have to move? (Score:2)
"nearly every constitutional right you can name" (Score:3)
nearly every constitutional right you can name
I haven't seen any indication of them violating his second or third amendment rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe in a couple of weeks your first grade teacher will tell you about the word "nearly" and how it isn't just a random jumble of letters with no meaning that we just throw randomly into sentences for fun.
i smell a new facebook policy ... (Score:2)
Shame (Score:3)
He should have held out for $2 million. Are constitutional rights so cheap nowadays that police can cheerfully violate them by the gross, and pay nothing more in compensation than the price of a second-hand car?
What the fuck, America. (Score:2)
Seriously. Both the incident itself and how it was subsequently 'dealt with' are of the kind of shit we only expect from actual police state wannabes like China, Russia and any number of fictitious dystopian states.
On behalf of the civilized world: get your fucking shit together.
but police are greeeeeeat (Score:2)
All officers remotely involved should have been fired and charged with criminal charges for starters. Whoever approved