[News] Protests Against Police Violence After Death of George Floyd

Discuss police violence, the victims of police violence (including George Floyd and Breonna Taylor), the Black-led protests against said violence, and related topics.

OG_slinger wrote:

The city of Louisville settled a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Breonna Taylor's mother today. It agreed to pay $12 million, the largest settlement for police misconduct in the city's history, and to reform how police handle warrants.

None of the cops who murdered Breonna six months ago have been arrested. One was fired back in June for blindly capping off 10 rounds into her apartment, displaying what the interim police chief called "an extreme indifference to the value of human life."

Money does not equal justice.

True, but $12 million will fund a lot things needed for the fight to get justice.

Nevin73 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The city of Louisville settled a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Breonna Taylor's mother today. It agreed to pay $12 million, the largest settlement for police misconduct in the city's history, and to reform how police handle warrants.

None of the cops who murdered Breonna six months ago have been arrested. One was fired back in June for blindly capping off 10 rounds into her apartment, displaying what the interim police chief called "an extreme indifference to the value of human life."

Money does not equal justice.

It's incredible that they went to these lengths and they still won't arrest the cops who killed her.

Hell, 2 of them are still on the force, right? And will the third still receive his pension?

Nevin73 wrote:

And will the third still receive his pension?

The pension that he earned with each year of continuing to turn up to work? The pension that was guaranteed under his employment contract?

Look, I'm all for firing the motherf*ckers and trying them for murder, but I don't see how putting their family in the poorhouse helps.

Firing him kind of has a greater impact on his family's ability to make ends meat than income that wouldn't be arriving in 10 or more years.

I don't know enough about this stuff, but I kind of thought if you were fired you were also not getting a vested pension. But then police unions are often a different animal than traditional employment contracts.

Jonman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

And will the third still receive his pension?

The pension that he earned with each year of continuing to turn up to work? The pension that was guaranteed under his employment contract?

Look, I'm all for firing the motherf*ckers and trying them for murder, but I don't see how putting their family in the poorhouse helps.

He deprived her of her life, though...

Nevin73 wrote:

I don't know enough about this stuff, but I kind of thought if you were fired you were also not getting a vested pension.

Vesting means you're now guaranteed that money. Once you reach the requirements for partial (<100%) or full (100%) vesting, you're unconditionally entitled to that portion of the employer contributions. Pensions that could be taken back unilaterally by the employer wouldn't very employee-friendly.

Asserting that a murderer cop should lose their vested pension is equivalent to saying their 401K should be seized. Those assets could be sought in a civil suit, but US courts don't usually aim to make criminals penniless.

Nevin73 wrote:

Firing him kind of has a greater impact on his family's ability to make ends meat than income that wouldn't be arriving in 10 or more years.

I don't know enough about this stuff, but I kind of thought if you were fired you were also not getting a vested pension. But then police unions are often a different animal than traditional employment contracts.

The entire point of a vested pension is that it's your money, not theirs.

Taking pension away from someone when you fire them is tantamount to forcing them to pay back a percentage of their salary from the entire time they've been employed.

There's some vauge idea in my head about something to do with civil service pensions and how under some cases you don't lose your pension, but your contributions to it are refunded to you and you are no longer allowed to participate in it.

I can't remember if that includes some kind of adjustment for inflation or anything, but there is a middle ground between them losing all their money and them benefiting from the risk-spreading advantages of a pension system (well, one that doesn't fail)

Jonman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

And will the third still receive his pension?

The pension that he earned with each year of continuing to turn up to work? The pension that was guaranteed under his employment contract?

Look, I'm all for firing the motherf*ckers and trying them for murder, but I don't see how putting their family in the poorhouse helps.

These wrongful death lawsuits should come out of the collective police pension. Then there'd be some incentive to not shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe the supposed "good cops" out there would stop the bad ones from murder, assault, falsifying evidence, and lying to the public. You know, those things that cops have been caught doing on video over and over again this year.

peanut3141 wrote:

but US courts don't usually aim to make criminals penniless.

Something about this doesn't compute for me. Isn't a strategy to winning lawsuits or getting someone to back down is to bury someone in legal fees? Or also make it much more difficult for criminals to hold a job once they are convicted? I think that the US Courts are very much designed to make certain people penniless.

As I understand it, military personnel who receive a dishonorable discharge (which is only done in cases of a general court-martial for reprehensible behavior such as murder or sexual assault) are not eligible for VA benefits or pensions.

I don't understand why police pensions would be any different.

Of course, that would require the officers to be charged, tried, and convicted of murder, which hasn't happened yet.

CptDomano wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:

but US courts don't usually aim to make criminals penniless.

Something about this doesn't compute for me. Isn't a strategy to winning lawsuits or getting someone to back down is to bury someone in legal fees? Or also make it much more difficult for criminals to hold a job once they are convicted? I think that the US Courts are very much designed to make certain people penniless.

I believe you're thinking of civil suits when you refer to burying people in legal fees to get them to back down. Criminal defendents are guaranteed a public defender if they can't afford them. I can already anticipate people saying public defenders are overworked. I agree, but that's a different conversation.

I'm unaware of how courts participate in making it more difficult for convicts to hold a job. That seems to be a speciality of legislatures and private companies.

I'm not going to go further down this derail. My point is that it's not the business of criminal courts to go after unrelated private property outside of predefined fines for some criminal behaviour.

hbi2k wrote:

I don't understand why police pensions would be any different.

Well, it's an entirely different contract you're entering. That's a pretty good reason for them to be different. sh*t, I have a pension too, but I guarantee you the terms are different from both the typical police pension and a military pension.

Despite the intentional and unintentional conflation, the police are not the military.

Stele wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

And will the third still receive his pension?

The pension that he earned with each year of continuing to turn up to work? The pension that was guaranteed under his employment contract?

Look, I'm all for firing the motherf*ckers and trying them for murder, but I don't see how putting their family in the poorhouse helps.

These wrongful death lawsuits should come out of the collective police pension. Then there'd be some incentive to not shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe the supposed "good cops" out there would stop the bad ones from murder, assault, falsifying evidence, and lying to the public. You know, those things that cops have been caught doing on video over and over again this year.

They should come out of the police budget.

Every cop should know that they aren't getting raises, OT, or new equipment because of the actions of some of their fellow officers. I doubt it would take long for the thin blue line to shatter and for cops to eagerly report on even the gently bruised apples in their ranks.

peanut3141 wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

I don't understand why police pensions would be any different.

Well, it's an entirely different contract you're entering. That's a pretty good reason for them to be different. sh*t, I have a pension too, but I guarantee you the terms are different from both the typical police pension and a military pension.

Despite the intentional and unintentional conflation, the police are not the military.

They are the only two groups that are authorized to use force on behalf of the state. There are differences of course, but that is a rather large similarity.

Will you explain to me why a police officer who commits murder while ostensibly acting on behalf of the state is entitled to a pension, while a military officer who does the same is not?

You are stating that there is a difference, but you are not explaining what that difference is or why it is morally justifiable.

What is the difference between a police officer and a military officer that is relevant to this issue?

hbi2k wrote:

You are stating that there is a difference, but you are not explaining what that difference is or why it is morally justifiable.

What is the difference between a police officer and a military officer that is relevant to this issue?

I have explained the difference. The difference between the two is that they signed different contracts with different terms. As far as I can tell, not having the contracts in hand, the terms spelled out for receiving a military pension in an enlistment contract is different for those spelled out for receiving a police pension in an employment contract. I tend to think that the terms established in a legally binding contract should be enforced. I'd definitely be in favor of police pensions being abolished in favor of defined 401k contributions going forward.

Again, the difference is they signed different contracts with different terms. I can understand and share the impetus to rewrite a lot of police contracts given what I now know about their contents. I don't think it's ok to ignore civil contract law because we want extra vengeance against some murdering f*cks. Arrest them, charge them, prosecute them, and incarcerate them. Going after retirement savings as a criminal punishment is not a defined punishment for murder as far as I'm aware.

peanut3141 wrote:

The difference between the two is that they signed different contracts with different terms.

That's circular. "They're different because they're different."

WHY are the contracts different? What is the moral justification for their difference?

hbi2k wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:

The difference between the two is that they signed different contracts with different terms.

That's circular. "They're different because they're different."

WHY are the contracts different? What is the moral justification for their difference?

I mean, aside from the very real fact that they're entirely different jobs, they're governed by entirely different bodies of law. International law governs war (and thus military operations), while policing is entirely domestic and governed by US domestic law.

And to be sarcastic, because the military kills foreigners, and that's a PR issue.

Jonman wrote:

I mean, aside from the very real fact that they're entirely different jobs

What is the difference between the two jobs that is morally relevant to the issue of entitlement to a pension after criminal and morally reprehensible conduct on the job?

Jonman wrote:

And to be sarcastic, because the military kills foreigners

Why do we hold the people who are authorized to use force against foreigners to a more stringent standard than the people who are authorized to use force against citizens?

hbi2k wrote:

Why do we hold the people who are authorized to use force against foreigners to a more stringent standard than the people who are authorized to use force against citizens?

Military doesn't have a union?

hbi2k wrote:

Why do we hold the people who are authorized to use force against foreigners to a more stringent standard than the people who are authorized to use force against citizens?

Cos other countries will shoot back.

Like I said, PR.

Serious answer though, because any country has substantially less moral ground to take actions against citizens of other countries than they do citizens on their own.

hbi2k wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:

The difference between the two is that they signed different contracts with different terms.

That's circular. "They're different because they're different."

WHY are the contracts different? What is the moral justification for their difference?

I am not here to morally justify the difference in the contracts. I'm simply stating that it's not appropriate to go after retirement savings as part of a criminal prosecution and police contracts don't permit pensions to be seized when the employee commits murder.

Saying we should do either anyway is asking us to ignore the rule of law.

hbi2k wrote:

They are the only two groups that are authorized to use force on behalf of the state. There are differences of course, but that is a rather large similarity.

Will you explain to me why a police officer who commits murder while ostensibly acting on behalf of the state is entitled to a pension, while a military officer who does the same is not?

You are stating that there is a difference, but you are not explaining what that difference is or why it is morally justifiable.

What is the difference between a police officer and a military officer that is relevant to this issue?

I agree this is an important question and it seems like people are kind of saying "they are different because they are"

I also have a hard time getting behind letting them keep their pensions.

It is complicated.

peanut3141 wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:

The difference between the two is that they signed different contracts with different terms.

That's circular. "They're different because they're different."

WHY are the contracts different? What is the moral justification for their difference?

I am not here to morally justify the difference in the contracts. I'm simply stating that it's not appropriate to go after retirement savings as part of a criminal prosecution and police contracts don't permit pensions to be seized when the employee commits murder.

Saying we should do either anyway is asking us to ignore the rule of law.

So your position is that even morally indefensible laws should be followed?

hbi2k wrote:

So your position is that even morally indefensible laws should be followed?

That's exactly how law works, yes.

Is your position that I should be allowed to pick and choose which laws I follow depending on how "moral" I judge them to be?

peanut3141 wrote:

I am not here to morally justify the difference in the contracts. I'm simply stating that it's not appropriate to go after retirement savings as part of a criminal prosecution and police contracts don't permit pensions to be seized when the employee commits murder.

Saying we should do either anyway is asking us to ignore the rule of law.

We make up the law so while you may be correct we can change that. We have tons of ways that felons lose rights, money, etc. We can do this to the police felons too.

So while it may not be the case now perhaps it is a good thing to change going foward.

Jonman wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

So your position is that even morally indefensible laws should be followed?

That's exactly how law works, yes.

That's circular. "It's legal, therefore it's legal."

I am not asking about what is legal. I will take your word for it that all the applicable legalities have been observed.

I am asking about the moral reasoning behind the legalities.

If there is any beyond "the law is a moral good unto itself," no one has offered it.

I disagree that the law is a moral good unto itself.

You seem to asking for morality where it doesn't exist. Morality and contract law are odd bedfellows.

So I'd posit that there is no "moral reason" why a soldier loses his pension when fired and a police officer doesn't.

The reasons for those differences are logistical, legal, diplomatic and political, but not moral.