why police brutality will ALWAYS be an issue for cities and citizens

and why it's usually a preferred action for cities.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/23/BAPO1OMR0E.DTL

The city of Vallejo has agreed to pay $4.15 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a man who said police seriously injured his spinal cord after entering his home without a warrant.

Officers Jason Wentz and John Boyd went into Macario Dagdagan's home on Louisiana Street without a warrant in June 2007 while investigating reports that he had assaulted his girlfriend, the city has acknowledged.

The officers found Dagdagan in bed at his apartment, apparently asleep, roused him, shocked him with a Taser stun device and put him in a chokehold, rupturing a ligament in his spine that led to paralysis, said Dagdagan's attorney, Peter Alfert.

Doctors at Stanford Medical Center were able to reverse the paralysis, Alfert said.

In court papers, attorneys for the city said Dagdagan was intoxicated, verbally aggressive and "failed to follow even basic lawful demands." Dagdagan had been accused of grabbing a meat cleaver, pulling his girlfriend's hair, slamming her into a wall and threatening to kill her, the city said.

A federal judge in Sacramento and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officers improperly went into Dagdagan's home without a warrant about two hours after the alleged assault on the girlfriend. There was no immediate emergency that would have exempted them from obtaining a warrant, the courts ruled.

"It was a flagrant violation of his constitutional rights," Alfert said.

Dagdagan, 62, had worked as a machinist at an oil refinery. He is now permanently disabled, walks with a limp, has weakness and pain in his extremities, and must take many painkillers each day, his attorney said.

The city will pay for the settlement through its insurance, Alfert said.

Both Wentz and Boyd are now Richmond police officers.

violent and abusive cops are what we call 'gypsy' cops, going from municipality to municipality after costing the previous city thousands to millions. These 'gypsy' cops are also highly prized and protected by the unions over cops that actually respect the rule of law and their jobs. welcome to more of your police state, when you decide to wake up that is.
 
of course not. it either doesn't directly affect them, or they're comfortable having taxes increased to cover insurance liabilities for violent cops...again as long as it doesn't affect them directly.
 
violent and abusive cops are what we call 'gypsy' cops, going from municipality to municipality after costing the previous city thousands to millions. These 'gypsy' cops are also highly prized and protected by the unions over cops that actually respect the rule of law and their jobs. welcome to more of your police state, when you decide to wake up that is.

Who's "we"?

Got any evidence of your claims that police officers who abuse their office and change employers are "highly prized and protected by the unions over cops that actually respect the rule of law"?
 
Who's "we"?

Got any evidence of your claims that police officers who abuse their office and change employers are "highly prized and protected by the unions over cops that actually respect the rule of law"?

i've posted evidence time and again, even in response to some of your more idiotic requests. I do not bookmark every single instance I report to this forum in anticipation of one of your demands for proof, just so I can say 'gotcha'. you either remember what you've read on here, or you don't.
 
i've posted evidence time and again, even in response to some of your more idiotic requests. I do not bookmark every single instance I report to this forum in anticipation of one of your demands for proof, just so I can say 'gotcha'. you either remember what you've read on here, or you don't.

So you can't provide any evidence to back up what you claimed?

Thank you for admitting it.

Who's "we"?
 
if it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead. I personally don't care anymore. my previous posts are plenty of evidence.

If it salves your butthurt to believe you've proven anything remotely akin to what you claimed (that police officers who abuse their office and change employers are "highly prized and protected by the unions over cops that actually respect the rule of law"), go ahead.

Who's "we"?
 
if it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead. I personally don't care anymore. my previous posts are plenty of evidence.

For someone who claims they "don't care anymore", you sure seem to be concerned.


Your posts provide plenty of evidence...evidence of your butthurt.


Butthurt-Detected-75000186641_xlarge.jpeg

 
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...moving-easily-to-new-departments-sheriff-says


One of Michigan's top police officers said enough isn't being done to weed out bad cops. Instead, problem officers move from department to department when something goes wrong.

Many agencies don't share information when they fire an officer, which allows the officer to get hired again somewhere else. It's happened dozens of times in Metro Detroit and can put all of the state's citizens at risk.

When police get in trouble on the job for roughing up a citizen, drug and alcohol abuse or insensitive racial or sexist remarks, they are often given a choice: They can resign or be fired.

Many officers choose to walk away, and they end up right back on the beat at a new police department, where nobody is aware of their past bad behavior.

"They're unaffectionately called gypsy cops," Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said. "Where they move around and sometimes the hiring agency doesn't have any knowledge of the background."

Bouchard said dozens of Metro Detroit cops have been forced out or fired only to end up across town patrolling streets and interacting with the public, potentially putting citizens at risk.

"Absolutely, it's common," Bouchard said. "It's especially common in certain kinds of communities that may be financially stressed. Where they don't maybe have the resources to do some of the backgrounds."

In 2015, Inkster police Officer William Melendez was arrested, charged and sent to prison for beating motorist Flody Dent after a traffic stop.

"I thought he was going to kill me," Dent said.

Before Melendez was an Inkster officer, he worked in Detroit. He left the Detroit Police Department after multiple lawsuits and a federal indictment were filed against him for roughing up citizens and tampering with evidence.

Melendez tried to get a job at the Oakland County Sheriff's Office, but a background check raised multiple red flags. A short time later, Melendez was hired in Highland Park and Inkster as a police officer.

"To pin a badge on that person's chest after what had transpired at a different agency was a recipe for disaster," Bouchard said. "Those are the kinds of high-profile cases, exactly what that speaks to. When those things happen once, they should not be allowed to happen again."

"Why should the police be immune from that?" attorney Greg Rholl said. "They should have some oversight mechanism."

Rholl is Dent's attorney, and he said his client settled the lawsuit for $1.3 million -- money the taxpayers in the financially troubled city of Inkster had to pay.

"We pushed three buttons on Google and found all the information we need to scare us, and to say, 'What was he doing on the police force?'" Rholl said.

Residents said they were shocked to hear that many small police departments can't afford to do background checks.

"They definitely should do a background check," said Gwendolyn Davis, of Westland. "You don't know what you're hiring."

The problem is even bigger. Michigan police agencies that force an officer to resign often refuse to tell other agencies why they parted ways with the cop out of fear they will be sued.

Bouchard supports a new Senate bill that would force police agencies to create and keep records of why each police officer left, and would make departments immune from civil lawsuits for sharing the information.

Some said they would like to see even more accountability. In Michigan, it's not permitted to have prospective employees take a polygraph test. Some officials believe before they are hired, applicants should be quizzed on past crimes, lawsuits and firings while hooked up to a lie detector.

"When I became a police officer I took a polygraph test," Bouchard said. "A lie detector. Why would you prohibit that?"

It's also prohibited to look at applicants' private social media accounts. Agencies could learn a lot about a prospective officer by what they post, but the law only allows employers to look at public accounts, not those with privacy settings.

"I would like to know that the people who are looking over the city, that I can trust them," said Jaclyn Rey, of Whitmore Lake.

Senate Bill 223 is in the House. If it passes, it will go to the governor for consideration. Law enforcement experts said the bill would be a good first step, but much more still needs to be done.
 
Back
Top