Victim of thug-with-a-badge wins lawsuit; City of Denver refuses to pay

[ryoder 1,407]

http://kdvr.com/2013/10/18/denver-wont-pay-victim-in-excessive-force-case-even-though-he-won-case/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 640]

Law supports enforcement.
File a claim against city hall, request police support, should work fairly easy.

[champu 1]

The headline is a bit misleading. It should say something more like "Denver washes it's hands of wrongful force judgement against deputy sheriff." Almost the same thing, but sets a bit of a different precedent.

Quote

Here, we do not believe that the deputy sheriff was acting within the scope of his employment because at the time the force was used, it was not authorized.

The part of me that remembers where the money comes from to pay public settlements/judgements of this type is kinda glad about this, but the rest of me just thinks, "Sorry Denver, you gave him a badge and a timecard to punch, and as long as he was wearing the badge and on the clock you don't get to say that you had nothing to do with his actions."

Are they going to claim that as soon as a LEO does something that wouldn't have been authorized he instantly is transformed into not-a-cop? (thus losing all powers/privileges/protections/duties cops have?) How is the person the cop is "interacting with" supposed to know when this happens and their rights suddenly change in the middle of an incident?

[ryoder 1,407]

champu

Are they going to claim that as soon as a LEO does something that wouldn't have been authorized he instantly is transformed into not-a-cop? (thus losing all powers/privileges/protections/duties cops have?) How is the person the cop is "interacting with" supposed to know when this happens and their rights suddenly change in the middle of an incident?

Convenient "Catch 22" isn't it?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Tink1717 2]

What the ACTUAL FUCK???!!!???

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Tink1717 2]

Another thing that alarms me here is the $40K for the victim and the $200+K for the lawyer. Why should the lawyer get that much more?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kelpdiver 2]

champu

The headline is a bit misleading. It should say something more like "Denver washes it's hands of wrongful force judgement against deputy sheriff." Almost the same thing, but sets a bit of a different precedent.

unfortunately for them, it doesn't work that way, just as it doesn't for a company who has a driver that crashes while driving a company car. They can fire him or her afterwards, but they're responsible for the actions of their people.

If he was off duty and acted outside the badge (iow, didn't identify himself as a cop), then they might be able to take this approach.

[BIGUN 1,100]

I can't help but wonder if the police administrations will catch on to this as an attempt to modify "Went Rogue" police officer behaviors. If the word gets out that you personally and not the city can be held liable for actions outside the scope of reasonable behavior; then perhaps it may reduce the number of police brutality findings? Not charges; but findings.

Now, having said, that, there's no way I would be a cop in these days & times. Bullshit from criminals, from children being taught not to respect the law, from the media and a spineless administration and what; 30-40K/annum? Fuck that.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[skypuppy 1]

ryoder

http://kdvr.com/2013/10/18/denver-wont-pay-victim-in-excessive-force-case-even-though-he-won-case/

I don't see how the city can get out of it. I'd be progressing with a lawsuit against the city. They should be paying and then going after the cop themselves... But that's just my take.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 0]

skypuppy

***http://kdvr.com/2013/10/18/denver-wont-pay-victim-in-excessive-force-case-even-though-he-won-case/

I don't see how the city can get out of it. I'd be progressing with a lawsuit against the city. They should be paying and then going after the cop themselves... But that's just my take.

I can't get the video to run (?), and I can't find any other versions of the story on Google. So before I can weigh in, it would help to know: did the plaintiff's attorney not also sue the city itself, as would be standard practice in a case like this? If so, what came of that? If not, why the hell not? I need more facts.

[ryoder 1,407]

Andy9o8

I can't get the video to run (?), and I can't find any other versions of the story on Google. So before I can weigh in, it would help to know: did the plaintiff's attorney not also sue the city itself, as would be standard practice in a case like this? If so, what came of that? If not, why the hell not? I need more facts.

That stupid video won't play for me on Chrome, Firefox, nor Safari.
It *will* play on Opera.

Here is a link to a text version of the story: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23726133/denver-jury-finds-fired-sheriffs-deputy-violated-prisoners

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Andy9o8 0]

OK, thanks.

Quote

Denver, which was not named in the suit,

That surprises me. Most of the time you always sue the governmental employer as a co-plaintiff in police civil rights cases, as a matter of course.

Assuming the plaintiff's attorneys aren't incompetent, my educated guess is perhaps they were concerned that if they did name The City in the suit, the City might get dismissed for the very lack-of-agency reason at issue here - thereby establishing a "law of the case" they'd be stuck with - so instead they preferred to deliberately leave it ambiguous until the post-judgment phase.

IMO, if that's what they did, it's a risky strategy, because the statute of limitations to sue the City has probably expired by now; so if they lose the issue against the City now, the plaintiff's attorneys will be in jeopardy of a malpractice claim.

[champu 1]

Andy9o8

IMO, if that's what they did, it's a risky strategy, because the statute of limitations to sue the City has probably expired by now; so if they lose the issue against the City now, the plaintiff's attorneys will be in jeopardy of a malpractice claim.

By the way, when we keep saying, "the city" do we really mean, "the county" on account of this being an employee of the sheriff's office?

Otherwise I agree, the lawyer may have screwed this guy, which would explain why he got on the news and bad mouthed the city so quickly. Hell, it's only 40 grand, let the lawyer pay the judgement, then everyone wins .

[ryoder 1,407]

champu

By the way, when we keep saying, "the city" do we really mean, "the county" on account of this being an employee of the sheriff's office?

Here in CO, there are two cities which are also counties: Denver and Broomfield.
So the words "city" and "county" are interchangeable when speaking about either of them.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[champu 1]

ryoder

***
By the way, when we keep saying, "the city" do we really mean, "the county" on account of this being an employee of the sheriff's office?

Here in CO, there are two cities which are also counties: Denver and Broomfield.
So the words "city" and "county" are interchangeable when speaking about either of them.

Gotcha, I know "Denver" is a cluster of cities, but didn't know how the counties were arranged. Thanks.

[davjohns 1]

Andy9o8

OK, thanks.

Quote

Denver, which was not named in the suit,

That surprises me. Most of the time you always sue the governmental employer as a co-plaintiff in police civil rights cases, as a matter of course.

Assuming the plaintiff's attorneys aren't incompetent, my educated guess is perhaps they were concerned that if they did name The City in the suit, the City might get dismissed for the very lack-of-agency reason at issue here - thereby establishing a "law of the case" they'd be stuck with - so instead they preferred to deliberately leave it ambiguous until the post-judgment phase.

IMO, if that's what they did, it's a risky strategy, because the statute of limitations to sue the City has probably expired by now; so if they lose the issue against the City now, the plaintiff's attorneys will be in jeopardy of a malpractice claim.

I had the same questions Andy does and agree with his assessment entirely. If the City was not found responsible in the lawsuit, of course they are not going to pay.

For everyone else, I know it seems odd, but you have to think about it a bit. Your employee leaves the front desk for a smoke break. While on break, they run across the street and murder someone before returning to work. Are you responsible? Of course not. Even if he was in uniform and on the clock, it is possible he was not acting within the line and scope of his employment. Without knowing the details, you can't say. The issue should have been presented to the Judge. It appears it was not. If the Plaintiff failed to submit the issue of the City's responsibility in the matter, that make the City a villain. It makes them a non-party. Again...hard to say without the details. The Devil lies therein.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.