Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Commenting glitch fixed | Main | State Department running guns to Mexico, too? »

Further thoughts on the Canton shocker

Posted by David Hardy · 21 July 2011 02:34 PM

The fellows lawyer posts on Ohioans for Concealed Carry that the City offered to drop charges if he'd give them a waiver of liability, he refused, and they of course had to drop charges anyway. (scroll down to July 13 posting: " At the first pretrial, the prosecutor offered to dismiss all charges for a release of liability (promise they wouldnt be sued). I refused their offer")

1. I'd think they would have skipped that offer, since it sounds uncommonly like extortion to me. We will drop criminal charges if you give us something of monetary value....

2. In a §1983 claim, the person who violated rights is of course liable. The problem is always with proving liability of the City or other governmental unit. The ordinary respondeat superior (the principal is liable for the acts of his agent) doesn't apply, you have to show that the city itself did something that makes it liable. This usually takes the form of arguing insufficient training, or an extensive list of violations so long that violating a right becomes unwritten policy. (And the loss rate here is high). Or ratification -- the city did something that retroactively endorsed the violation, essentially. If you give your agent a bonus for his illegal acts, or a commendation, then you become liable for them.

I wonder if the city's plea offer isn't ratification of the violation. The arrest was the officer's problem, but the prosecution is theirs. They demand something of value from the victim -- specifically, a release from liability for the officer and the city -- as a price for their dismissing. The principal has used its power in order to protect its agent from liability for wrongdoing.

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Harry Schell | July 21, 2011 3:24 PM | Reply

It makes sense they would bargain for immunity from perceived fault, of course with a "heads I win, tails you are nowhere" attitude. No matter how clearly they are in the wrong, anyone who complains is a hinderance to their orderly operations and need neutralization so time/money can be spent on more "rewarding" things, like pensions. Not that the private sector is immune from this kind of self-centered indifference, but the idea the government is somehow poulated with more "better" people is really taking a beating these days. Rightfully so...

JR | July 21, 2011 5:27 PM | Reply

Holy crap this is horrific! Not only should all the perps be thrown in prison for life without parole, they should have all their assets seized and pensions transferred to the victim.

Josh A. Kruschke | July 21, 2011 6:26 PM | Reply

I tried to comment yesterday informing you I made a post and linked to yours. I will be updating it with a link to this one also.

Josh

DML | July 21, 2011 7:44 PM | Reply

Another scummy tactic used to lower the payout: the City threatens to NOT indemnify the officer. Happened to someone I know.

Jim | July 22, 2011 11:30 AM | Reply

Apparently this is getting national coverage. Its now on Fox's homepage and is making radio and TV news everywhere. I guess, for some reason, it gets people's attention when a cop says he will "execute" you, his partner will lie to cover him, and it will be all good.

Its good that it makes news, because that means it is not normal or common behavior. Its reassuring to see that people are shocked by this, as they should be.

What amazes me the most, though, is that the officer left the camera running! Apparently he didn't think twice about his behavior, and that's a problem.

TeeJaw | July 23, 2011 11:55 AM | Reply

Some provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct ought to be relevant for the attorney/prosecutor in this case.

For example, the rule against threatening criminal prosecution to gain an advantage in a civil case; by analogy, the rule against a lawyer seeking an agreement with anyone that they will refrain from filing an ethics complaint; and the catch all rule against any dishonest conduct reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

An extortionist threat should fall under that last one. Added to these is the notion that a prosecutor is supposed to do justice, not just pursue convictions.

That one has pretty much become a joke. Especially with so many cases similar to Pottawattamie County v. McGhee where prosecutors actually framed the defendant with evidence they knew to be false.

Alex | July 24, 2011 8:44 AM | Reply

Wouldn't FRE 408 prohibit introduction of evidence of the city's plea offer?

Anyway, I am glad this is getting coverage.

Leave a comment