Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
Pretty sure the article only tells about 40% of the story.
Like in the one case omitting the "cop" was off duty, drunk and the city was not sued. Which all sort of negates the cities liability. It is not like the cities, in police brutality cases, volunteer out of goodness and kindness to pay plaintiffs. There is a legal duty/theory requiring them to pay. If not then really they should not be giving away tax payer money.
But if the city is trying to (a) distance itself from the cops and, (b) not spend unnecessary taxpayer money, then why is it paying for the officers' personal bankrptcy attorneys and apparently directing the process?
http://m.clevescene.com/cleveland/ho...lice-officers/
"But rather than indemnify per state law in that case, the city paid for the officers to enter bankruptcy — paying not only for their legal representation, but for their filing fee. Not to think about going into bankruptcy, Ayers' attorney Brown points out, but to dive right in.
"I think it's really clear when you look at the contract that the purpose was not to provide the officers with neutral, unbiased legal advice," she explains. "It was to ensure they filed for bankruptcy right away."
For one, the contract didn't pay the attorney by the hour, but instead forked over a $1,000 lump sum for each bankruptcy. "This is pretty unusual," Brown argues. The contract also does not compensate the bankruptcy attorney for any legal research; in fact, the attorney must get permission from the city's law department to undertake any research, discouraging the officers from finding an alternative to bankruptcy."