It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Jury Awards Man $1.3 Million after Home Video Proved Deputies Lied

page: 2
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Good.

I am glad these cops got caught out, and I am very glad that the victim was vindicated in a court of law.

One of the most troubling things about abuse of citizens by law enforcement agents, is that it naturally and unavoidably builds a distrust of police agencies, because that same badge, that same gun, that same squad car, are all talismans for the very individual who threatened or hurt the victim...

And yet, all too often it is the case that police officers who overreach in power, are merely farmed off to another state, taking up the very same kind of work, with the same poor attitude, the same megalomania. That cannot continue. It should be the case that once an issue has been raised against an officer in one area, NO POLICE AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY would hire him.




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Pretty poor form by that officer--he should have hip-checked him first to redistribute Faulkenberry's weight onto his right leg prior to attempting the takedown. He wasn't even controlling is upper body properly to effectively complete the takedown--obviously.

All joking aside, the force was unnecessary, but this $1.3-million award is also ridiculous. But, hey, I'm sure that the police chief and the mayor will be drilling "necessary force" into their officers' heads for a while.

Then it will happen again once everyone gets complacent.

Faulkenberry appears to have done everything correctly in this instance. All it takes is that one jackass of a LEO to ruin it for all of them.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

How about a 25-year minimum sentence for any police officer found to have filed a false report?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh?, please tell us why the award is "ridiculous"

These goofs are the definition of pigs, and I'm not talking about all cops.
edit on 17-10-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Because the award should fit the crime (the abuse of force and, IMO, illegal kidnapping based on a lie) and the physical effects of the use of force (which appear to be none or minimal, but this activist-site article doesn't discuss that).

Now, let's just say that half of that is for the abuse of force (which would still be an excessive amount, IMO)--that still leaves $650,000 left over for the 10 days that he was held in jail. That breaks down to %$65,000 per day that he was in jail as compensation.

No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculously excessive--that's paying this man more than the average household income of an American family PER DAY that he was locked up, plus double that for the assault on him by the police officer.

Instead of condescendingly asking my why that's ridiculous, maybe you can back your insinuation that it's not? Those are 1,300,000 tax dollars going to this guy because he was jailed for 10 days (unjustified, I get that) and got taken down to the ground. There are apparently no medical bills or anything, it doesn't say that he lost his job...nothing that requires compensation other than the bail that he (for some strange reason) still had to post to get out.

$1,300,000.00 generally takes the average household 22.8 years to accumulate through an average income of $57,000.

This guy "earned" 23 years worth of average income because of this incident? No, I would submit that he did not, especially not at the expense of the local taxpayers.

So, my stance is that the officer's behavior and the subsequent jailing is unacceptable, as is the amount of compensation that Faulkenberry is receiving. Both are excessive and ridiculous--and that's an okay stance to have.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is a ridiculously large sum of money. I agree, but I'd rather an innocent man go free and get paid than be in jail for the actions of scum like those LEOs

It didn't HAVE to go this way. Who do we blame? And I doubt it was Faulkenberry's idea to try to get that much. But once you lawyer up, I'm sure they start telling you how much you CAN get. So why not set the bar high?

All in all, the crimes committed here rest on the shoulders of the officers, who hopefully lose their jobs, face jail time, and are made famous for their transgressions against the very people they are hired to protect and serve.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BiffWellington
a reply to: infolurker

How about a 25-year minimum sentence for any police officer found to have filed a false report?


You wouldn't even need that if the law was applied equally. Any prosecutor worth his salt could get convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and false imprisonment plus a lot more. Let them spend their time in general population and it would be as good as a life sentence.

It's obvious that taxpayer paid fines aren't deterring this sort of behavior. Maybe jail time will.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

cops are gonna cop.

"Had it not been for his home surveillance camera, Faulkenberry might still be in prison." - there's a lesson
here for everyone.


et cetera et cetera.
and so on and so forth.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Very rare to see, but justice was done in this case, at great expense.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: vonclod

Because the award should fit the crime (the abuse of force and, IMO, illegal kidnapping based on a lie) and the physical effects of the use of force (which appear to be none or minimal, but this activist-site article doesn't discuss that).

Now, let's just say that half of that is for the abuse of force (which would still be an excessive amount, IMO)--that still leaves $650,000 left over for the 10 days that he was held in jail. That breaks down to %$65,000 per day that he was in jail as compensation.

No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculously excessive--that's paying this man more than the average household income of an American family PER DAY that he was locked up, plus double that for the assault on him by the police officer.

Instead of condescendingly asking my why that's ridiculous, maybe you can back your insinuation that it's not? Those are 1,300,000 tax dollars going to this guy because he was jailed for 10 days (unjustified, I get that) and got taken down to the ground. There are apparently no medical bills or anything, it doesn't say that he lost his job...nothing that requires compensation other than the bail that he (for some strange reason) still had to post to get out.

$1,300,000.00 generally takes the average household 22.8 years to accumulate through an average income of $57,000.

This guy "earned" 23 years worth of average income because of this incident? No, I would submit that he did not, especially not at the expense of the local taxpayers.

So, my stance is that the officer's behavior and the subsequent jailing is unacceptable, as is the amount of compensation that Faulkenberry is receiving. Both are excessive and ridiculous--and that's an okay stance to have.



The idea of a ridiculously large amount of money is to act as a deterrent on government workers and departments who would consider corruption as a part of their daily routine.

The minute he was arrested by the police, it is very likely that his employer would have fired him, the bank may decide to foreclose on the property, the car showroom takes back the car, his friends disassociate themselves with him. That amount of money is fair compensation.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I would tell the Judge that they can keep the money.
but sack the cops.
and may sure they dont get jobs as cops or security guards again.
a example to other Bad cops.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

And to add one thing. Without the video he would have spent several years minimum in a state prison. They were literally trying to steal his life. 1.3 million isn't enough actually.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I wasn't trying to be condescending..just asked a serious question, you are of course entitled to have a stance
I would be more than happy if these clowns were personally liable for the award, I agree it sucks the award is paid by the taxpayer..were these idiots fired? , if not than the employer is supporting this crap passively..jail is more than acceptable to me as well.
The idea of these awards is partially to be punitive correct? Again I agree the taxpayer should not be stuck with it..time for the taxpayer to do something about it.
Maybe a form of insurance simular to malpractice should be instituted for LE, and/or they go to prison like joe citizen would..both preferably in this case.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ntech

I second ntec. They could have destroyed this man's career and life. It could conceivably have cost him 1.3 million in his lifetime income. He could have been killed, or sodomized in jail. 1.3 million? Cops getting off cheap.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

The problem is the cops are getting off, the taxpayer foots the bill..the cops should be jailed at the very least..after a trial of course, I also think they should be personally liable.
I have no problem at all with the victim being compensated.
edit on 17-10-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: infolurker

Great outcome1




I bet this stuff would be reduced greatly if the officers lost their pensions when crap like this happened!


YES, YES, YES. GREAT idea!



As my brother, who is a retired police officer, would gladly tell you, police officer pension is next to nothing. It would take 100 years of his pension to pay the 1.3 million settlement.

Plus once the officers get fired or jailed they lose any chance at pension anyhow.

I don't believe police officers lose any pension or benefits unless convicted of a felony while still on the force.
Again, convicted, felony, while on the force.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Maybe make it like motor Vehicle insurance, an excess payable by the Sheriffs/Deputies involved. Some sort of co-payment. Might make them remember they are servants of the People.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: denybedoomed
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is a ridiculously large sum of money. I agree, but I'd rather an innocent man go free and get paid than be in jail for the actions of scum like those LEOs

I agree, but at the same time, getting paid doesn't have to be so disproportionately exorbitant.


It didn't HAVE to go this way. Who do we blame?

The LEO, for sure...but I haven't ever said otherwise.


And I doubt it was Faulkenberry's idea to try to get that much. But once you lawyer up, I'm sure they start telling you how much you CAN get. So why not set the bar high?

Because you have respect for the taxpayers who will be paying out the award, or because you have personal integrity and you know that the amount is too high for what happened.

I mean, maybe he gives 2/3 of it away to charities...that'd be nice, but it's still on the taxpayer's dime.


All in all, the crimes committed here rest on the shoulders of the officers, who hopefully lose their jobs, face jail time, and are made famous for their transgressions against the very people they are hired to protect and serve.

I agree for the sweep-the-leg-Johnny cop, but the others don't deserve to lose their jobs for that one officer's actions.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
The idea of a ridiculously large amount of money is to act as a deterrent on government workers and departments who would consider corruption as a part of their daily routine.


I understand that, especially in this case where there was no recompense needed for medical bills or whatnot, and it was solely to, shall we say, teach the PD a lesson.

But that doesn't negate my argument that I, personally, think that the total amount awarded to Faulkenberry was completely ridiculous, because in the end, it's not necessarily the PD who gets punished, but the taxpayers and the community whose PD now will have less money for training, or technology (like body cameras and non-lethal equipment like tasers), or even less good cops patrolling the streets.

Again, it's not the agency that is punished as much as the source of the funding, which is the taxpayer. THAT is why I feel as I do. I agree with the deterrence factor, but not with the amount awarded.


The minute he was arrested by the police, it is very likely that his employer would have fired him, the bank may decide to foreclose on the property, the car showroom takes back the car, his friends disassociate themselves with him. That amount of money is fair compensation.

No, it's not "very likely"...possible, sure. Did it happen? We don't know, but again, my math I presented is pretty simple, and he does not deserve 46 years' worth of median household income just because maybe the things that you mention 'might coulda' happened.

The judicial system should not be in the business of awarding people exorbitant amounts of taxpayer dollars for things based on a slippery-slope argument--it's the definition of illogical. I'm all about awarding him for what did happen, though, but not to this extreme.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I wasn't trying to be condescending..just asked a serious question

Then bygones are bygones and we'll move on; sorry for the misconception.


I would be more than happy if these clowns were personally liable for the award, I agree it sucks the award is paid by the taxpayer..

Yes, I could see myself supporting personal liability of police officers in instances like this where their conduct is deemed to be inappropriate and excessive. Of course, you're not going to get $1.3M dollars out of an individual officer, but I'll tell ya, even taking a few hundred out of a paycheck every two weeks up to a certain total amount would be a bi-weekly reminder to not do it again.

But that type of liability would open up a whole problem, IMO, where investigators might find something justified when it shouldn't be, just to keep the officer from having to pay out of pocket. It would create even more conflict of interest in the system.


The idea of these awards is partially to be punitive correct? Again I agree the taxpayer should not be stuck with it..time for the taxpayer to do something about it.
Maybe a form of insurance simular to malpractice should be instituted for LE, and/or they go to prison like joe citizen would..both preferably in this case.

Yes, the award is meant to be a punitive deterrent against future similar behavior, but I don't believe that works as well for a business as it does for an average citizen. But it is what it is, and I certainly don't advocate against punitive damages, so it's a catch-22 for me sometimes. Again, my focus here is on the ultimate source of the $1.3M and not that I think that the PD shouldn't be punished.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that many, if not most or all, LEO agencies keep a 'litigation budget' as a line item in their overall budget, just in case things like this happen. I don't know how much (I'm sure that it varies greatly) each keeps, but I'm sure that there's something there in most departments. But, even so, it still comes from taxpayers.

Things like this is why I get irritated at what I deem to be ridiculous amounts paid out to victims of police overreach or abuse:

L.A. needs to borrow millions to cover legal payouts, city report says

The Los Angeles City Council in recent years has repeatedly settled costly, high-profile lawsuits, agreeing to spend millions of dollars to end litigation brought by grieving families, disability-rights groups and people wrongfully convicted of crimes.

City Hall leaders championed some of the settlements as having a silver lining for taxpayers, such as one in 2015 that created a program to fix L.A.’s buckling sidewalks.

But a surge in legal settlements, along with court judgments against the city, is outpacing the city’s ability to keep up.

With payouts projected to total at least $135 million this fiscal year, budget officials said Monday that the city needs to immediately borrow up to $70 million to avoid dipping into its emergency reserve fund.

In a new report, the City Administrative Office said the gap reflected “a new trend of increased liability payouts.” The report recommended raising the money through a bond that would be paid back over 10 years.

Such borrowing would cost the city millions of dollars each year in interest and fees. Under one scenario discussed Monday, the city would pay $9 million each year in principal and interest on a $70-million bond.

While I believe that the police forces and cities need to do a better job avoiding this litigation and subsequent awards to plaintiffs, I also think that judges and juries (and city leaders, in the case of settlements) need to be better stewards of how much that they are willing to award the victims.

Fair, but balanced...not to paraphrase a 24-hour news channel's tagline. I think that we are unbalanced right now.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join