Police Behaving Badly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Or, to start, lose the pension if convicted of commiting a felony on the job. I know that may sound obvious, but, there are two NYC detectives in jail for doing mob hits on the side, but, collecting taxpayer funded retirement payments. That woman in Ohio who confused her gun with her tazer will probably buy a lot of cigarettes in jail with her nearly 25 year service pension, if convicted.

---

I don't agree that pensions should be taken from public employees because they commit a crime. Pensions are deferred benefits the employee earned for past service. Employees who have pensions are not "given" pensions as a gift, they are earned.

If the crime includes a fine then have at it and fine away. Otherwise taking their pension is no different than taking their house, their 401(k), stock of Utica Club or their bowling ball. The pension ends up supporting the family when public sector employees go to jail.

I get the sentiment but do not support the position.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfcf13

Are you an alzheimer patient? How else could you type that?

For instance: the Floyd family sued the city of Minneapolis, not the Minneapolis Police Dept. If you believe that the $27 million lawsuit settlement amount was directly pulled from the police dept budget, you are even dumber than I thought. In case you missed it, the police department has pretty strong political position (they are a union, so dems are going to support them. And I probably don't need to tell you why Republicans support them). They're not experiencing a financial hit when their cops have bad behavior and draw a lawsuit.
Read the article I posted, maybe you'll agree that if your man crush Bernie wanted to do something useful he'd push for legislation that shifted liability from the municipality to the police dept. But he's too lazy, so I don't think he'll do anything.

I'm sorry I don't have a long history of posting here like you. I was a "longtime listener, first time caller". I'm going to get outside, have fun ranting more on here. And don't fuck with SVS again.

---

So, just, wow. The police budget thing. I'll just continue quoting it so everybody can see it. It's remarkable, because I'm pretty sure you believe it.

As far as your join date, are you telling me you lurked, and then took notes about my political tastes? For, months, nay, years? Holy shit. But, that's ok, I know you're full of shit.

Hey, are you SVS? He hasn't been around lately.

I have a hard time supporting your position if it is clearly murder, as I have seen on numerous occasions. The people are going to be saddled with a large expense to incarcerate the shit head, so their pension can go towards that expense IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC13

I don't agree that pensions should be taken from public employees because they commit a crime. Pensions are deferred benefits the employee earned for past service. Employees who have pensions are not "given" pensions as a gift, they are earned.

If the crime includes a fine then have at it and fine away. Otherwise taking their pension is no different than taking their house, their 401(k), stock of Utica Club or their bowling ball. The pension ends up supporting the family when public sector employees go to jail.

I get the sentiment but do not support the position.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Well, fine, not any public employee commiting any crime. But, cops doing mob hits? Or, just plain murder 2, at least? Sorry. Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC13

I don't agree that pensions should be taken from public employees because they commit a crime. Pensions are deferred benefits the employee earned for past service. Employees who have pensions are not "given" pensions as a gift, they are earned.

If the crime includes a fine then have at it and fine away. Otherwise taking their pension is no different than taking their house, their 401(k), stock of Utica Club or their bowling ball. The pension ends up supporting the family when public sector employees go to jail.

I get the sentiment but do not support the position.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

I disagree. It is different than a 401K that is essentially tax deferred savings from income already earned.

Quote:

---

At this time, half of the states have pension revocation laws or regulations. In 19 states, the rules apply to public officials and public employees alike.

After five years of trying, lawmakers in Connecticut enacted a pension revocation law in 2008.

A string of well-documented corruption scandals on the state and local levels inspired the law, including the convictions and imprisonments of former Gov. John G. Rowland, former state Sen. Ernest E. Newton II, ex-Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim and former State Treasurer Paul Silvester on federal charges.

The law does not guarantee that a corruption conviction will lead to the revocation or reduction of a pension. A Superior Court judge makes the decision...

The statute specifies that convictions for certain crimes trigger the law — embezzlement of public funds; felonious theft from the state, a municipality or a quasi-public agency; bribery; or felonies committed through the misuse of a government office or job.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC13

I don't agree that pensions should be taken from public employees because they commit a crime. Pensions are deferred benefits the employee earned for past service. Employees who have pensions are not "given" pensions as a gift, they are earned.

If the crime includes a fine then have at it and fine away. Otherwise taking their pension is no different than taking their house, their 401(k), stock of Utica Club or their bowling ball. The pension ends up supporting the family when public sector employees go to jail.

I get the sentiment but do not support the position.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Social Security is terminated for people convicted of any crime resulting in a prison sentence. It does start back up when the person is released from prison. I see no reason a government pension should not receive similar treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

https://luke.substack.com/p/the-goal...apped-here-b12

I was always vaguely aware that the justice system was a device to control society, but I was never fully aware of just what a money-making scheme it is and how once you enter it its sole design is to ensnare you and keep you trapped there for as long as possible. Throughout this entire process my one thought has been, Jesus fucking Christ imagine if I didn't have the support of my friends and family, a flexible steady job, money in the bank, the ability to live in the city. I mean, this process is hard enough for a person with all that. Without those things it would be so easy to get overwhelmed and swept away to spend the rest of your life in a cage.

Civil asset forfeiture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiballs

The cops didn’t treat you like you were special because of your occupation, now you’re scared of cops, honky please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

On the contrary--I'm sure I was treated "special" because of my skin color, etc. That's the whole point of my post. I didn't think I had to explain it.
(Back in the day my dad, who was a doctor, had a caduceus on his license plate--he thought it might keep him from getting tickets as he did house calls. That hasn't been a thing for many decades. Because doctors don't do house calls.)

Well, shit. Even when a cop does the right thing, he later freaks out and fucks up.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...-help/2649178/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

So, just, wow. The police budget thing. I'll just continue quoting it so everybody can see it.

---

I mean feel free to keep quoting it, it just makes you look even sillier. Your assertion that lawsuits for police misconduct have a substantial financial impact on police departments is a completely and utterly incorrect assertion and your doubling down makes you look like an obstinate WOML who can't admit when he's wrong.

From the Brookings Institute:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-w...police-reform/

"My research suggests a pathway forward to absolve the political stalemate by shifting civilian payouts for police misconduct away from taxpayer money to police department liability insurance policies. In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets. Civilian payouts for police misconduct put a strain on local governments and absolve police officers of culpability."

It will be interesting to hear what kind of bullshit incoherent ramblings you attempt to refute this author's findings. I'll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfcf13

I mean feel free to keep quoting it, it just makes you look even sillier. Your assertion that lawsuits for police misconduct have a substantial financial impact on police departments is a completely and utterly incorrect assertion and your doubling down makes you look like an obstinate WOML who can't admit when he's wrong.

From the Brookings Institute:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-w...police-reform/

"My research suggests a pathway forward to absolve the political stalemate by shifting civilian payouts for police misconduct away from taxpayer money to police department liability insurance policies. In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets. Civilian payouts for police misconduct put a strain on local governments and absolve police officers of culpability."

It will be interesting to hear what kind of bullshit incoherent ramblings you attempt to refute this author's findings. I'll wait.

---

Quoted. More please.

So, your local police department is funded by...whom?

This guy ain't getting away with what he pulled, I hope.

Maryland officials to launch review of cases handled by ex-chief medical examiner who testified in Chauvin’s defense
By Emily Davies and Ovetta Wiggins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...89d_story.html

"Top Maryland officials are launching an investigation of all deaths in police custody that were overseen by the state’s former chief medical examiner who testified in Derek Chauvin’s defense, the Maryland attorney general and governor’s offices announced Friday.
Raquel Coombs, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, said the office has been in internal discussions about launching a probe for the past couple of weeks and recently reached out to Gov. Larry Hogan’s office about how to proceed.
David Fowler, who was Maryland’s chief medical examiner from 2002 to 2019, served as a key witness for Chauvin, whose high-profile trial ended this week with a jury convicting the former Minneapolis officer of murder and manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.
Fowler broke with the Hennepin County medical examiner, among others, to classify Floyd’s killing as “undetermined” and not a homicide. Floyd was seen in viral video gasping for breath while pinned under Chauvin’s knee. Fowler testified that the primary cause of Floyd’s death was cardiac arrhythmia during police restraint due to underlying heart disease. He also said that Floyd’s drug use and exposure to carbon monoxide from the police car contributed to his death.
Fowler has defended his work.
“I stand behind the outstanding work that all of our dedicated staff at the Maryland State Medical Examiner’s Office performed during my tenure as the Chief ME,” Fowler said in a statement Friday afternoon."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Quoted. More please.

So, your local police department is funded by...whom?

---

You are arguing that police departments are financially impacted when there is a lawsuit for police misconduct. He is arguing essentially the opposite (to quote: In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets.)

Only one of you is correct. (And it's not you)

BTW, here are Dr. Ray's credentials (what exactly are your credentials? Besides professional blowhard, that is)
Dr. Rashawn Ray, a David M. Rubenstein Fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution, is Professor of Sociology and Executive Director of the Lab for Applied Social Science Research (LASSR) at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is also one of the co-editors of Contexts Magazine: Sociology for the Public. Formerly, Ray was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Research Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

Civil asset forfeiture

---

Can’t believe I’m quoting MTT. But civil forfeiture is brings appalling. How the Supreme Court hasn’t banned it is beyond me. And with the fascists on the bench now they’ll probably strengthen it for cops. New Mexico passed a law against it and many police departments said fuck of and continued the practice. Cops are just a gang with the power of the state in their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altacoup

Cops are just a gang with the power of the state in their side.

---

They are basically organized crime. / mafia. If you’re a cop you are a “made man”. Beat up your girlfriend, arrest a nurse, the other made guys won’t interfere or make you suffer consequences. They will lie and cover for each other, even when there are crimes unrelated to the line of duty (see Philadelphia drug dealing cop trial). If you are friendly with their crew you will get special treatment but never be “made”. They run rackets and extortion schemes to enrich themselves, both legally (civil seizures and tickets) and illegally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfcf13

You are arguing that police departments are financially impacted when there is a lawsuit for police misconduct. He is arguing essentially the opposite (to quote: In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets.)

Only one of you is correct. (And it's not you)

BTW, here are Dr. Ray's credentials (what exactly are your credentials? Besides professional blowhard, that is)
Dr. Rashawn Ray, a David M. Rubenstein Fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution, is Professor of Sociology and Executive Director of the Lab for Applied Social Science Research (LASSR) at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is also one of the co-editors of Contexts Magazine: Sociology for the Public. Formerly, Ray was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Research Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.

---

That's all very impressive, but, you're not answering the question. Where do police departments get their funding? It's pretty simple, dude. I'm giving you a lot of slack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

That's all very impressive, but, you're not answering the question. Where do police departments get their funding? It's pretty simple, dude. I'm giving you a lot of slack.

---

Duh, taxpayers via the municipality. That isn't the point you obtuse geezer. The point is that police departments are not financially impacted when there are lawsuits for misconduct (as you have tried repeatedly to claim without any evidence). Dr. Ray argues that if the police department budgets *were* financially impacted by lawsuits, perhaps that would create incentive for police depts to finally clean up their act.

One more time, since you are an idiot: In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets.

Go hate fuck your Hillary sex robot, maybe it will calm you down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfcf13

You are arguing that police departments are financially impacted when there is a lawsuit for police misconduct. He is arguing essentially the opposite (to quote: [FONT="]In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets.)
[/FONT]
Only one of you is correct. (And it's not you)

BTW, here are Dr. Ray's credentials (what exactly are your credentials? Besides professional blowhard, that is)
[FONT="]Dr. Rashawn Ray, a David M. Rubenstein Fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution, is Professor of Sociology and Executive Director of the Lab for Applied Social Science Research (LASSR) at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is also one of the co-editors of [/FONT][FONT="]Contexts Magazine: Sociology for the Public[/FONT]. Formerly, Ray was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Research Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.

---

Hey man, I hate to tell you but that dude is a sociologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crusty

Hey man, I hate to tell you but that dude is a sociologist.

---

Yes, and these are the type of issues that sociologists study. What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfcf13

Duh, taxpayers via the municipality. That isn't the point you obtuse geezer. The point is that police departments are not financially impacted when there are lawsuits for misconduct (as you have tried repeatedly to claim without any evidence). Dr. Ray argues that if the police department budgets were financially impacted by lawsuits, perhaps that would create incentive for police depts to finally clean up their act.

One more time, since you are an idiot: In most cities and counties, civilian payouts for police misconduct come from general funds and not from police department budgets.

Go hate fuck your Hillary sex robot, maybe it will calm you down.

---

Ah, good, you're finally getting it. The police department's are funded "duh [by] taxpayers via the municipality." That is correct. But then you get all nasty and bring up Hillary [anger issues]. Strange. But, whatever.

Now, consider this. A municipality has a finite budget for a year. Let's say, oh 50 million dollars. The police department is part of that overall budget, your "general funds". Now, that municipality probably carries insurance for liabilities due to legal actions against it. It should, because, if it didnt, it could be forced into insolvency by a legal decision against it that called for substantial monetary penalties. Now suppose a citizen wins a lawsuit against the municipality for being abused by the police, or a family sues because a family member was killed by the police. The municipality claims the financial loss with the insurance company, or, if it's not a ball breaking amount of money, they pay directly out of the "general funds" the same "general funds" that fund the police department. The insurance company is going to be very concerned about the claim they have to pay, especially if the municipality is refusing to insist that the police modify their behavior so that they don't bring more expensive lawsuits upon the municipality. So, they either raise their rates, or drop the coverage entirely. Either way, insurance is now more expensive, and the town has less money for everyday functions. Like, the police. So, are you getting it? Was I typing too fast?

Christ.

My sociology department was where the Marxists went and circle jerked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Ah, good, you're finally getting it. The police department's are funded "duh [by] taxpayers via the municipality." That is correct. But then you get all nasty and bring up Hillary [anger issues]. Strange. But, whatever.

Now, consider this. A municipality has a finite budget for a year. Let's say, oh 50 million dollars. The police department is part of that overall budget, your "general funds". Now, that municipality probably carries insurance for liabilities due to legal actions against it. It should, because, if it didnt, it could be forced into insolvency by a legal decision against it that called for substantial monetary penalties. Now suppose a citizen wins a lawsuit against the municipality for being abused by the police, or a family sues because a family member was killed by the police. The municipality claims the financial loss with the insurance company, or, if it's not a ball breaking amount of money, they pay directly out of the "general funds" the same "general funds" that fund the police department. The insurance company is going to be very concerned about the claim they have to pay, especially if the municipality is refusing to insist that the police modify their behavior so that they don't bring more expensive lawsuits upon the municipality. So, they either raise their rates, or drop the coverage entirely. Either way, insurance is now more expensive, and the town has less money for everyday functions. Like, the police. So, are you getting it? Was I typing too fast?

Christ.

---

And yet police budgets go up, year by year (this past year may be the only exception in some cities, and it is due to public pressure, not rising insurance premiums).

Now why do police budgets expand even as police misconduct cases impact cities/counties and their budgets? Because local politicians would be committing political suicide to cut police budgets. Instead they will cut other dept budgets or raise taxes.

As result of this situation, police departments do not experience any impact to their budget even if they have police misconduct cases.

Not sure if you are obtuse or stupid or both.

You're an obstinate little 11/2020 jong, I'll give you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

You're an obstinate little 11/2020 jong, I'll give you that.

---

That's Bennyspeak for "I was factually wrong and I admit it".

Consent decrees have not stopped police misconduct.
Doubtful that Chauvin going to jail will stop it.
Shifting the financial risk of civilian lawsuits from city/county directly to police departments might just get these guys attention. Obviously it won't completely eliminate misconduct but it will definitely make a police chief more likely to fire bad cops, if his budget is on the line. It would have to be coupled with measures that weaken police union ability to contest firings (no small task).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-w...police-reform/