Status
Not open for further replies.

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Yet Another Reason to Oppose Police Violence: It's Costing Us Millions of Dollars
From 2011 to 2019, the city of Austin paid $8 million in settlements to victims of police violence, and another $800,000 to private law firms brought in to defend the city and Austin Police Department officers in civil lawsuits stemming from APD's use of force. With at least eight more suits pending, the costs are likely to increase.

Data provided to the Chronicle by the city shows that 61 lawsuits were filed against the city or an individual officer accused of using excessive force. State law requires that the city provide legal defense to any officers sued for actions taken while on duty. In most cases, in-house attorneys from the city's Law Department take on these cases, but if the department is short-staffed or needs outside expertise, the city will contract with outside counsel.
 

Rachel20

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2020
1,954
1,443
STX
✟58,109.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If money is the issue, we should be opposing incarceration for all non-violent crimes. For those, we should just go back to the Biblical idea of restitution to the injured parties, rather than creating more victims by making us all pay for it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
If money is the issue, we should be opposing incarceration for all non-violent crimes. For those, we should just go back to the Biblical idea of restitution to the injured parties, rather than creating more victims by making us all pay for it.
Yes, we should release non-violent offenders.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rachel20
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Not a very convincing argument in favor of police violence, I must say...
It speaks to the false choice given, either accept police violence and brutality, or receive no protection for the community. When you see this false choice, along with support for people Derek Chauvin, it truly typifies why BLM exists because it's obvious that Black people are seen as a threat that must remain subservient to "real Americans."

That's why they can look at the death of George Floyd and argue that the police officer's conduct was acceptable, i.e., resting a knee on the neck of a handcuffed man, but scream bloody murder at the shooting of Ashley Babbitt because, "She was unarmed!" Ignore the whole rioting thing because we all know the real threat is a handcuffed man on the ground. They will throw their full weight behind defense arguments like the crowd shouting for police officers to help George Floyd were a threat, but then argue that a violent mob breaking down barricaded doors while chanting about lynching are not a threat if they don't have guns. It typifies the belief that Black people are violent brutes that need to be subdued by police, while "real America" must have police as their servants.

If there ever was something that truly encapsulates American racism, it's the acceptance of this idea that police violence is okay when dealing with Black people. Such behavior would never be accepted for the majority racial group. All the time, we see justifications foisted for armed insurrection (e.g., Ammon Bundy and his acquittal). But the moment a Black person says anything in defense of their right to live, their life is forfeit.

We're told to accept police violence or no police, that is just a wild argument. Because at the end of the day, they cheer on police violence, so as long as it is only directed at Black people.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It speaks to the false choice given, either accept police violence and brutality, or receive no protection for the community. When you see this false choice, along with support for people Derek Chauvin, it truly typifies why BLM exists because it's obvious that Black people are seen as a threat that must remain subservient to "real Americans."

That's why they can look at the death of George Floyd and argue that the police officer's conduct was acceptable, i.e., resting a knee on the neck of a handcuffed man, but scream bloody murder at the shooting of Ashley Babbitt because, "She was unarmed!" Ignore the whole rioting thing because we all know the real threat is a handcuffed man on the ground. They will throw their full weight behind defense arguments like the crowd shouting for police officers to help George Floyd were a threat, but then argue that a violent mob breaking down barricaded doors while chanting about lynching are not a threat if they don't have guns. It typifies the belief that Black people are violent brutes that need to be subdued by police, while "real America" must have police as their servants.

If there ever was something that truly encapsulates American racism, it's the acceptance of this idea that police violence is okay when dealing with Black people. Such behavior would never be accepted for the majority racial group. All the time, we see justifications foisted for armed insurrection (e.g., Ammon Bundy and his acquittal). But the moment a Black person says anything in defense of their right to live, their life is forfeit.

Which is precisely what makes it unconvincing.

We're told to accept police violence or no police, that is just a wild argument. Because at the end of the day, they cheer on police violence, so as long as it is only directed at Black people.

Which is why I'm left to wonder whether such an attitude is based on racism or cowardice.

Do they really support the violence directed at black people... or are they just saying what they think they must to sure it's never directed at them?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm personally not a fan of using legal costs as a justification for policy.

To be clear, there's definitely some policing policies I'd like to have changed. (qualified immunity is one that needs to go away)

But going with "whatever costs taxpayers a lot of money...or could result in a lawsuit, needs to go away" is basically putting money over pragmatic policy.

Policy changes need to be evaluated based on their own merits.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,023
2,546
✟228,159.00
Faith
Christian
I'm personally not a fan of using legal costs as a justification for policy.

To be clear, there's definitely some policing policies I'd like to have changed. (qualified immunity is one that needs to go away)

But going with "whatever costs taxpayers a lot of money...or could result in a lawsuit, needs to go away" is basically putting money over pragmatic policy.

Policy changes need to be evaluated based on their own merits.

And I agree, but the issue is that the problem of police violence has been going on for decades, and very little has been done to stop it. So people are resorting to suing the government in order to enact change.
 
Upvote 0

Semper-Fi

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 26, 2019
1,788
754
63
Pacific north west
✟398,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The 61 cases include 33 that were dismissed,

[over half dismissed]

20 that were settled,

[no court case, why settle with payment]

and six where the city or the officer prevailed in court.

[six won there case]


Only two resulted in judgments at trial for the plaintiffs.

[in 8 years, out of 61, only 2 where lost]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If money is the issue, we should be opposing incarceration for all non-violent crimes. For those, we should just go back to the Biblical idea of restitution to the injured parties, rather than creating more victims by making us all pay for it.

We can't because that would be theocratic. We will have to reference the Nordic idea that is the exact same thing because as as long as it isn't a Judeo Christian belief it seems that it is fine if it is based upon a religious belief.

I do believe that restitution is a much better solution than incarceration and incarceration should be reserved for violent offences like murder, rape, assault, rioting , robbery, burglary, looting or vandalism. Anyone that thinks burglary is non violent has never experienced it.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If money is the issue, we should be opposing incarceration for all non-violent crimes. For those, we should just go back to the Biblical idea of restitution to the injured parties, rather than creating more victims by making us all pay for it.

Good luck with that. :doh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Avniel

Doing my part each day by being the best me
Jun 11, 2010
7,219
438
Bronx NYC
✟31,441.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Black people (God love them!) still call the police.
I’m black I was robbed at knife point and I didn’t call anyone. I was also in a home invasion in my younger years, still did not call the police.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Seriously, stay on-topic, the topic is about police violence and the financial cost it places on cities.
Ok, then an argument could be made (if cost is the only metric) that we need to authorize the police to use more lethal force against criminals that commit crimes since the cost of incarceration is so high and recidivism is almost a certainty. The lifetime cost of a criminal to society is greater than the cost of a few accidental killings. Had the police shot Floyd when he was violently resisting (and been authorized to do so by the legal system), there would have been no rioting or trial.

I happen to agree that “cost” is a poor metric for making these decisions, but bullets are cheaper than prisons.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
stay on topic posts deleted.jpg
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Ok, then an argument could be made (if cost is the only metric) that we need to authorize the police to use more lethal force against criminals that commit crimes since the cost of incarceration is so high and recidivism is almost a certainty. The lifetime cost of a criminal to society is greater than the cost of a few accidental killings. Had the police shot Floyd when he was violently resisting (and been authorized to do so by the legal system), there would have been no rioting or trial.

I happen to agree that “cost” is a poor metric for making these decisions, but bullets are cheaper than prisons.
George Floyd wasn't violently resisting nor was he accidentally killed, he was murdered. I terms of saying more violence is needed to keep order, what is the correlate for that? Other countries seem to be far more peaceful and orderly without the police violence and corruption, so it seems making the country more of a police state is not the solution.

Besides that, this is tacit approval of police brutalizing innocent citizens.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm personally not a fan of using legal costs as a justification for policy.

To be clear, there's definitely some policing policies I'd like to have changed. (qualified immunity is one that needs to go away)

But going with "whatever costs taxpayers a lot of money...or could result in a lawsuit, needs to go away" is basically putting money over pragmatic policy.

Policy changes need to be evaluated based on their own merits.

The cost has to be looked at relative to the actual benefits received. A cost/benefit analysis.

Having an overly brutal police forces costs society much more than the above analysis and has no added benefit. Single incidents can cause large amounts of social strife and increase distrust of policing in general.

Further, any such analysis of our overly costly prosecution of our overly punitive legal code will tell you that how we treat non-violent offenders especially doesn't really benefit society.

Models that focus on rehabilitation of such offenders do a better job insuring peace in society and cost less relatively.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.