2 Outside Reviews Say Cleveland Officer Acted Reasonably in Shooting Tamir

[Derec]

I take it you have performed lots of negotiations in similar situations

When I negotiate I usually offer to pay a huge amount right off the bet to avoid any actual negotiations. Thus I paid $10,000 over sticker price when I bought my last car. The dealer was very happy. NOT!

where there was almost no chance of winning a lengthy and costly jury trial.

Why do you think that? The DA exonerated the cops. As the title of the OP says, two independent outside reviewers thought the officers acted reasonably. The gun looked realistic (with orange tip deliberately removed; is the family suing the friend who did this or are they only going after deep pockets) and Tamir himself had the height and weight of an adult, not of a preteen. There was no reason not to fight this case, or settle for a much smaller amount.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yeah, it's almost like Tamir's parents criminal records have nothing to do with whether or not the Police Department has any civil liability in the shooting death of their son by one of their officers.

Their poor child rearing skills and their lack of supervsion of their son definitely had much to do with their son being killed.

This is bullshit. Allowing a 12 year old to go to the park with his sister (not sure of her age, but I think I remember that she was older than Tamir), is not considered to be a lack of supervision to any reasonable person. You have no reason to suspect poor child rearing skills in this incident, either. Kids play with toy guns, whether their parents allow them to, or not.

Besides, even if the police had responsibility they do not deserve anything close to six million dollars.

I do actually agree with this. The amount of the reward seems excessive. On the other hand, the murderer police officer who pulled the trigger getting off without so much as a slap on the wrist is entirely unconscionable.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That makes an indictment unlikely and a conviction nearly impossible.

The BLM crowd will just see it as another example of white institutional racism demonstrating black lives don't matter. The conclusions of these two investigations must have been racially motivated, as no other explanation is possible to the BLM activists.

What you quoted does not suggest that at all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the city thought they would lose the lawsuit they should have offered a smaller amount of money. Capitulating like this and offering six fucking million dollars is irresponsible toward the taxpayers. And it is merely your assumption that an impartial jury would find for the irresponsible parents and award them millions.
Had Tamir not been waving a realistic looking replica (with orange tip removed) he would not have been shot. Why is that always ignored?

I take it you have performed lots of negotiations in similar situations where there was almost no chance of winning a lengthy and costly jury trial.

I think the main problem is the cost and time. Obviously more data would be needed for an evaluation but if a person genuinely thought there was a threat how should he have acted in the circumstances. This of course varies from situation to situation.

 

[Malintent]

In what way is any of this on-topic for the Cleveland case?

I believe my quote tags are in order... assuming you were addressing me.

 

[laughing dog]

If the city thought they would lose the lawsuit they should have offered a smaller amount of money.

The only way you would know what the city initially offered and how the negotiations actually went is if you were there. Were you there?

Capitulating like this and offering six fucking million dollars is irresponsible toward the taxpayers.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Besides the suit is about the negligence of the city which includes the dispatcher omitting that the caller thought the gun might be a toy.

And it is merely your assumption that an impartial jury would find for the irresponsible parents and award them millions.

I made no assumption. "Obviously, the city officials expected that if the suit went to trial that the jury would be less likely to be filled with people with conflict of interests or boot-lickers of police authority or bigots and expected a much larger award. " makes no assumption about the impartiality of the jury. It is an observation about the expectations of the city officials.

Had Tamir not been waving a realistic looking replica (with orange tip removed) he would not have been shot. Why is that always ignored?

Probably because Tamir Rice was not waving anything when the police arrived. When he was gunned down, he had nothing in his hands.

 

[ksen]

In fact, government officials should be held to the same fiduciary duty standards as officers of companies.

You mean none?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In fact, government officials should be held to the same fiduciary duty standards as officers of companies.

You mean none?

It would make my job a whole lot easier if I didn't have to justify everything I bought.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/25/us/tamir-rice-settlement/index.html?adkey=bn

What the fuck Cleveland!? Why should yet another set of horribly irresponsible parents be made into millionaires even though DA exonerated the two police officers? And the city, like NYC and Chicago and others before, negotiated like they were in Bizarro World - offer a very high amount first. The city government has failed in their duty to the taxpayers and they all should be voted out! In fact, government officials should be held to the same fiduciary duty standards as officers of companies.

No. $6 million is too much but the city is in the wrong here.

The cops were exonerated of criminal wrongdoing but that does not absolve them of civil liability. Civil liability can come from an oops with no criminal conduct involved.

 

[Trausti]

What the fuck Cleveland!? Why should yet another set of horribly irresponsible parents be made into millionaires even though DA exonerated the two police officers? And the city, like NYC and Chicago and others before, negotiated like they were in Bizarro World - offer a very high amount first. The city government has failed in their duty to the taxpayers and they all should be voted out! In fact, government officials should be held to the same fiduciary duty standards as officers of companies.

No. $6 million is too much but the city is in the wrong here.

The cops were exonerated of criminal wrongdoing but that does not absolve them of civil liability. Civil liability can come from an oops with no criminal conduct involved.

Also, it'd probably be styled as a civil rights action - so lots of attorney fees the city would have to pay if it lost. Civil liability is a lower burden than crime charges, increasing the chance of exposure. And I'd suppose that the city is behaving like a business would do in this type of situation; pay a premium to make an unflattering case go away rather than have it drag on in the media for years.

 

[ksen]

Capitulating like this and offering six fucking million dollars is irresponsible toward the taxpayers.

You know what else is irresponsible toward taxpayers?

Keeping officers on the police force that can't be bothered to assess a situation before opening up on a taxpayer or member of his family.

 

[ksen]

You mean none?

It would make my job a whole lot easier if I didn't have to justify everything I bought.

Yabut you're just a peon, not a Lord of the Universe.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I know this throws a wrench into the "irresponsibility to the taxpayers" argument, but this lawsuit will most likely be covered by the city of Cleveland's Professional Law Enforcement Liability insurance policy. (The limits of which I would guess to be around $6m). The reason it will be covered is because the police were exhonorated. This type of policy is designed specifically to protect the tax-payers whenever any law enforcement officer is the target of a tortious liability lawsuit - while engaging in lawful conduct in the line of duty.

At worst there may be a $100,000 deductible or something and the price of the policy might go up slightly next year (depending on how busy the Cleveland PD lawsuit docket was this year).

aa

 

[RavenSky]

even if the police had responsibility they do not deserve anything close to six million dollars.

I know that you do not have a child or wife, but have you ever had anyone in your life that you loved? How much is that person worth to you?

 

[Deepak]

I know this throws a wrench into the "irresponsibility to the taxpayers" argument, but this lawsuit will most likely be covered by the city of Cleveland's Professional Law Enforcement Liability insurance policy. (The limits of which I would guess to be around $6m). The reason it will be covered is because the police were exhonorated. This type of policy is designed specifically to protect the tax-payers whenever any law enforcement officer is the target of a tortious liability lawsuit - while engaging in lawful conduct in the line of duty.

At worst there may be a $100,000 deductible or something and the price of the policy might go up slightly next year (depending on how busy the Cleveland PD lawsuit docket was this year).

aa

Interesting tidbit - I was under the impression that the insurance would pay out even in cases where unlawful conduct occurred, as long as the police didn't violate a well-established right.

That said, I thought they would have tried the old Cleveland end reverse play https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...heme-to-avoid-paying-victims-of-police-abuse/

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I know this throws a wrench into the "irresponsibility to the taxpayers" argument, but this lawsuit will most likely be covered by the city of Cleveland's Professional Law Enforcement Liability insurance policy. (The limits of which I would guess to be around $6m). The reason it will be covered is because the police were exhonorated. This type of policy is designed specifically to protect the tax-payers whenever any law enforcement officer is the target of a tortious liability lawsuit - while engaging in lawful conduct in the line of duty.

At worst there may be a $100,000 deductible or something and the price of the policy might go up slightly next year (depending on how busy the Cleveland PD lawsuit docket was this year).

aa

Interesting tidbit - I was under the impression that the insurance would pay out even in cases where unlawful conduct occurred, as long as the police didn't violate a well-established right.

It might, but I think the insurer would deny the claim first and then the city would have to appeal the claim and might need to threaten a lawsuit against the insurer. Professional Liability policies are meant to cover acts of 'Errors or Omissions' in the performance of a professional service. So if an accountant makes a mistake preparing your taxes and you sue him, his professional liability policy pays. If he intentionally defrauded you or the government, the insurer won't pay. The same logic applies to Law Enforcement Liability. If the officer is convicted of murder (right to life being well established), the policy won't pay. If a death is ruled to be accidental (at least according to IA/DA) then the policy will pay.

The difficulty, as always and for every type of profession covered under these policies, is codifying and proving intent. Unless a prosecutor can successfully show that the defendant acted with malicious intent, then insurers have to pay the claim.

That said, I thought they would have tried the old Cleveland end reverse play https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...heme-to-avoid-paying-victims-of-police-abuse/

Thanks for the link. The situation sounds horrific.

aa