71–80 of 543 posts
It’s pretty toxic that people don’t want to take responsibility for their own government in a democracy. In this case, it’s especially bad, given the sheriff is elected by the people directly. But I’d go even further and say even where control is less direct, we need incentives for voters to take this stuff seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system needs to change so pursuing frivolous or weak charges doesn't work. We also need to reform bail, which has gone way outside of historical/constitutional norms. Turning it into an escalating back and forth of each side trying to imprison the other, is not conducive to the kind of change we need. To take a recent example, while I don't particularly like James Comey or Letitia James, I don't think they should…
> each side trying to imprison the other, you're implying that the two sides are morally and legally equivalent, and both are just engaging in retaliatory squabbling. that is a ridiculous implication one "side" routinely flaunts the law, steals from the public, abuses and ignores the courts, and has a complete disregard for civil rights, legal procedure, and credibility. it uses the DoJ as a personal henchman, string…
I view it differently. To me there's the pro incarceration side and the anti incarceration side. Both parties institutionally are pro prosecution and have failed to reign in abuses.
Both sides have abused the courts. Instead of arguing over which side has abused them worse (I may not even disagree with you on that!) I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse.
The sheriff that arrested him should face criminal charges for misuse of authority. That he doesn't reflects a structural weakness in US law. In most European legal systems a law enforcement officer overstepping his legal authority would face criminal charges for it.
It's not a structural weakness, it's an intentional feature . Our legislature specifically and intentionally made it impossible for citizens (or anyone) to hold police responsible for anything.
The real problem right now is how the courts determine if an official was acting in good faith. Right now they are assumed to have acted in good faith unless it has already been “clearly established” that what they did was illegal. This means that the official can argue that they didn’t know that their actions were illegal because no prior case ever dealt with that exact fact pattern. This works far too often and has let a lot of very guilty police get away with their crimes. Still, some police officers _are_ held to account, so it is not actually impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I'm just saying said amount seems fair from the monetary side of this case's specifics. (And let's face it, the outcome here was guaranteed, and the inevitable settlement was always gonna include attorney fees or be done pro-bono.)
The outcome wasn't guaranteed; that's the scary part. If Trump had decided to take a hand then it could have been drawn out for months at a minimum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should start by removing the ability of prosecutors and police to bring such cases in the first place.
What does that look like here? They falsely claimed he'd made an actionable threat. We can't remove their power to request warrants and arrest people for legitimately threatening others, right? They misused power.
I think there are ways to have a system where judges do that, without having to criminally prosecute either cops or judges.
A judgement isn't enough. Those behind the warrant should be in prison, and fined personally. The tax payers of Tennessee shouldn't have to foot the bill for their malfeasance.
So the taxpayers should not face accountability for who they elect?
Basic responsibility sits with those who commit the act.
The sheriff that arrested him should face criminal charges for misuse of authority. That he doesn't reflects a structural weakness in US law. In most European legal systems a law enforcement officer overstepping his legal authority would face criminal charges for it.
Police don't face criminal charges for this.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
> retired Tennessee law enforcement officer Larry Bushart has won a substantial settlement from the county and sheriff behind his arrest. I did not expect to read that the victim was a retired law enforcement officer. This whole case is weird. I’m glad he won a settlement but I would like to see some actual accountability.
I’ll cut against the grain here and say it’s ABSOLUTELY appropriate for taxpayers to pay the bill here. It’s pretty toxic that people don’t want to take responsibility for their own government in a democracy. In this case, it’s especially bad, given the sheriff is elected by the people directly. But I’d go even further and say even where control is less direct, we need incentives for voters to take this stuff serious…
* We does not mean everyon every time - it means the people from whom an official vests their power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that look like here? They falsely claimed he'd made an actionable threat. We can't remove their power to request warrants and arrest people for legitimately threatening others, right? They misused power.
The magistrate judge is supposed to be a check on that power. Unfortunately, they've become rubber stamps for the most part. In a functioning system, the judge would block the warrant and arrest. I think there are ways to have a system where judges do that, without having to criminally prosecute either cops or judges.
But they lied to obtain the warrant.