Neither the driver, 43-year-old Timothy Russell, nor his passenger, 30-year-old Malissa Williams, ever got a chance to explain why they fled. Moments after they stopped, 13 officers, including Brelo, unleashed a hail of 137 bullets into their car. Brelo fired 49 of those rounds, reloading his weapon twice and finishing the assault from atop the hood of the rusty Malibu. When the shooting subsided, Russell and Williams were both dead, each suffering more than 20 bullet wounds.
Last week, a judge found Brelo not guilty on all charges stemming from the incident, ruling that the shooting was justified and that it was impossible to determine if the fatal shots were fired by him or one of the other 12 officers. Brelo was the only officer facing criminal charges in the shooting and remains on the force. Though the Cleveland Police Department's astonishing trigger-happiness led to a Justice Department review that culminated this week in an expansive set of reforms (which the head of a Cleveland police union has already denounced), the city's taxpayers have been on the hook for the tragic mistake for months.
In November 2014, a county judge approved a $3 million out-of-court settlement resulting from a wrongful death lawsuit, to be paid by the city of Cleveland to the victims' families and their lawyers. That money, like the rest of the police department's budget, comes from taxpayers.
Some say this system of liability allows officers to do a difficult job without constant fear of being sued, while also ensuring that victims can seek damages. In many cases, however, it's hard not to feel that we are subsidizing negligent police behavior and misconduct, at a time when city budgets are tight and calls for improved accountability in law enforcement are louder than ever.
As the Washington Post's Radley Balko noted in a 2014 blog post, these lawsuits are "supposed to inspire better oversight, better government and better policing." When the Baltimore Sun reports that the $5.7 million in taxpayer funds paid out to settle police misconduct cases between 2011 and 2014 could "cover the price of a state-of-the-art rec center or renovations at more than 30 playgrounds," for example, citizens are supposed to respond by demanding political change that will help address the root causes of these lawsuits and ensure their money goes to building playgrounds instead.
It hasn't always played out like this at the voting booth, but maybe it's time we begin applying political pressure on the issue of policing.
The sheer size of this financial burden is a big problem, as the regular six- and seven-figure police misconduct settlements around the nation demonstrate. And while the reports below point to some substantial figures, the total amount we're actually paying remains something of an unknown, as the terms of settlements are sometimes sealed to the public and police data collection concerning civil suits and their outcomes has long been criticized as inadequate. There's also the broader question of what messages the civil justice system's indemnification of police sends to officers and the taxpayers who are liable for the costs that officers incur.
If the public ends up paying for an officer's misconduct or alleged misconduct, it seems fair that they'd want the officer and the police department he or she works for to make efforts to keep taxpayers from having to shell out for future settlements or judgments. Instead, we see police departments routinely failing to discipline problematic officers, including those named in lawsuits, even when they may already have a record of misconduct or complaints.
We also see departmental inaction as officers across police forces repeatedly face the same accusations of misconduct, either due to violations of policy or because the policies themselves are inappropriate. We see police departments resist reform and transparency, which would cut back on allegations of misconduct, including in false claims officers inevitably face. And we see a system of adjudication that now regularly seeks to settle lawsuits, supposedly saving taxpayer dollars in part by keeping the facts of a misconduct case from going before a jury, which may decide a plaintiff deserves an award larger than the settlement. (Police don't pay regardless, and this approach coincidentally saves them from further public scrutiny.)
Some police departments have made proactive reforms in the face of these taxpayer-subsidized infractions. Others were forced to change after things got so bad that the Justice Department had to intervene. But many police forces, including those in some of the cities below, have seemingly taken advantage of a system that empowers officers to act with impunity and provides little pressure to deter future misconduct.
There is no easy solution for this deeply entrenched problem. Speaking out with your voice and your vote is a start. Others have suggested a reform that would shift some financial liability in civil lawsuits back onto police -- who are, after all, responsible for the actions in question.
But if we continue to do nothing, we are giving tacit approval to a relationship in which taxpayers sometimes end up being victimized twice -- both as the direct casualties of police misconduct and the unwilling enablers who must eventually pay for that misconduct.
Original Article
Source: huffingtonpost.com/
Author: Nick Wing
No comments:
Post a Comment