Interesting LEO lawsuit

[Shaman97]

I don't really understad what the officers truly expect to get out of this.

 

Year after shootout, deputies seek $8 million from widow

 

Seems the respondent is judgment-proof. At least the dog seems to be adjusting well.

[ghaverkamp]

It will be interesting to see how the attorney argues that this case isn't covered by the firefighter's rule. The California Supreme Court seems to like the rule, and the only exception they seem to go along with is if there is misconduct beyond that which drew the emergency personnel to the scene.

 

If the estate was huge, I could see someone taking this on, but this doesn't seem to be about anything other than vindictiveness.

 

Nice rundown here.

 

(Oh, how I already miss my free Westlaw and Lexis.)

[bakerzdosen]

Apparently you've forgotten that you have a findlaw account too...

 

There are good LEO's and bad LEO's... I've gotta say that IMHO, these fall under the bad category. Whether they were in that category before, I don't know, but this just wipes out a lot/any good they may have done to date.

 

I hope they end up having to pay court costs and her defense fees.

[ghaverkamp]

Apparently you've forgotten that you have a findlaw account too...

 

Yeah. But it's free, and worth every penny.

[motorman587]

I like this quote in the article,

 

Julie Davies, a professor at McGeorge School of Law. "Additionally, they are paid well to encounter the risks.

 

[ghaverkamp]

I think "paid well" has got to be taken relatively, and maybe it's geographical. Around here, police tend to dominate the lists of the highest earning city employees, as was the case when I lived in Massachusetts. In San Francisco, the entry level salaries in the PD are between $75,868 to $101,556.

 

No one's getting rich on that around here, but I think it's hard to argue that they aren't at least reasonably well paid.

[motorman587]

Police Officer Police Officer ? (Tallahassee, Florida) Starting Salary: $40,068.07 - $65,024.59 Lateral Hire Plan 2 ? 4 years experience $42,708.56 5 - 6 years experience $44,630.43 7 - 8 years experience $46,638.81 9 ? 10 years experience $48,737.56 11 + years experience $50,930.74

 

Here is our starting salary............

 

$30,825.36 annually or $35,825.16 in Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Monroe, or $37,007.64 in Collier and Lee Counties.

 

The Florida Highway Patrol.............

 

I remember an ad that we as we asked for a raise couple years ago. Had a cop lying on the ground with a line saying, "How much would you put your life on the line"??? I believe, cops, firefighters, EMS and soldiers should all be millonaires for the crap they do on a daily bases.

[ghaverkamp]

But even those salaries don't strike me as particularly low. At the risk of sounding elitest, we're not talking about the strictest requirements to become a police officer. Compare those salaries to those of an E1 (or even O1) in the military, for instance.

[smiller]

Salaries vary pretty dramatically by locale. The guy who does our generator maintenance used to be a DPS (highway patrol) officer but had to switch careers to diesel mechanic because he made so much more money.

[motorman587]

But even those salaries don't strike me as particularly low. At the risk of sounding elitest, we're not talking about the strictest requirements to become a police officer. Compare those salaries to those of an E1 (or even O1) in the military, for instance.

 

I guess you are right. But in the military you do on deal with it every day. I am in combat zone each day, sitting with my back to the wall wearing my bullet proof vest, loaded weapon. But I guess I should not whine...but here our are requiements.

 

Must be U. S. citizen

At least 19 years old

Valid Driver's License & Good Driving History (No moving violations within 180 days of application; no DUI or felony traffic violations)

Correctable vision to 20/20 with color distinction and depth perception within "normal" range

Have at least a two-year degree OR 60 semester credit hours-Grade of "C" or better per class

No felony arrest or use of felony class drugs

Non-tobacco user of any type (on or off duty)

Good moral character & no violation of moral turpitude laws

Pass Oral Board, Polygraph, Drug, Medical and Psychological screens (Prior to Oral Board, applicants with no prior experience must complete a minimum of two Patrol ride-alongs. Applicant ride-alongs must be coordinated through the Recruiter's office.)

Pass thorough background investigation

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

But even those salaries don't strike me as particularly low. At the risk of sounding elitest, we're not talking about the strictest requirements to become a police officer. Compare those salaries to those of an E1 (or even O1) in the military, for instance.

 

I think the typical applicant for a police job would be an E4 or E5 at the end of his hitch, who would be making base pay of about $27,000, food and lodging of about $12,000, reenlistment bonus spread over 4 years of about $5,000 per year, totaling about $44,000 per year, not counting any combat pay. Which makes some of the Florida figures seem not very competitive, pay-wise. I've only had personal experience with the military side of the equation, but my impression is that police, at least in California, are more highly trained and called on to exercise more skills and judgement than the average E4 or E5 in the military.

[azpilot06]

But even those salaries don't strike me as particularly low. At the risk of sounding elitest, we're not talking about the strictest requirements to become a police officer. Compare those salaries to those of an E1 (or even O1) in the military, for instance.

 

Sorry, but that's not even remotely true. Here's the process in AZ:

 

Application (Typically 4-8 pages)

Written test (Competitive scoring, top XXX applicants taken)

Background Packet (Typically 30 pages)

Oral Board Interview (3-5 panel members, 30min-1hour)

Background investigation (Credit, Driving Records, Personal references, current and prior employers contacted, arrest/police contact records)

Medical examination

Psychological examination (MMPI / NWALD / B-PAD / CPI)

Psychological interview

Polygraph examination (160 pre-interview questions, 2-3 polygraph charts of 10 questions each)

Command staff review / recommendation.

 

After that, it's a 640-hour academy, a 2-4 week post-academy, then a 520-hour field-training program. Probationary status isn't over until the end of the first year.

 

Now I'll admit that it surprises even other cops that some officers make it through the process. However, I'd challenge you to tell me the last job for which -you- had to jump through this many hoops.

[ghaverkamp]

Sorry, but that's not even remotely true.

...

Now I'll admit that it surprises even other cops that some officers make it through the process. However, I'd challenge you to tell me the last job for which -you- had to jump through this many hoops.

 

Critical reading apparently isn't a component of those hoops. I didn't write that it's a trivial process; I wrote that the requirements aren't the strictest. There's a huge difference between process and requirements. It's not as if the line of applicants for the jobs are chock full of the best and brightest.

 

I know a thing or two about jumping through hoops, and my hoops don't even promise a job at the end.

[Shaman97]

But even those salaries don't strike me as particularly low. At the risk of sounding elitest, we're not talking about the strictest requirements to become a police officer. Compare those salaries to those of an E1 (or even O1) in the military, for instance.

 

Sorry, but that's not even remotely true. Here's the process in AZ:

 

Application (Typically 4-8 pages)

Written test (Competitive scoring, top XXX applicants taken)

Background Packet (Typically 30 pages)

Oral Board Interview (3-5 panel members, 30min-1hour)

Background investigation (Credit, Driving Records, Personal references, current and prior employers contacted, arrest/police contact records)

Medical examination

Psychological examination (MMPI / NWALD / B-PAD / CPI)

Psychological interview

Polygraph examination (160 pre-interview questions, 2-3 polygraph charts of 10 questions each)

Command staff review / recommendation.

 

After that, it's a 640-hour academy, a 2-4 week post-academy, then a 520-hour field-training program. Probationary status isn't over until the end of the first year.

 

Now I'll admit that it surprises even other cops that some officers make it through the process. However, I'd challenge you to tell me the last job for which -you- had to jump through this many hoops.

 

Actually, just this year. I had to do all of the application process you outline, though not the psychological exam, 110 hour academy and OJT. The job? Volunteer Firefighter. Pay? Nada. To be truthful, I did drop out after they sent me through the propane fire in the CONEX box. Just didn't get as much of a thrill out of it that I had anticipated. It's a helluvalottawork.

Pay isn't all it's cracked up to be, and isn't the first consideration for me at my present job. Important, but not critical.

I would imagine it's the same for LEO's - though the retirement program here in Cali is pretty good. Not as good as Dallas PD, but good.

[MotorinLA]

I don't really understad what the officers truly expect to get out of this.

 

Year after shootout, deputies seek $8 million from widow

 

Seems the respondent is judgment-proof. At least the dog seems to be adjusting well.

 

Salaries are in my opinion irrelevant in this discussion. This is just stupid. Thanks to these two jackasses, police officers now have one more thing that brings negative attention to them.

 

If you don't want to take the risks, then don't take the job! When you work in a job where wearing a bullet-proof vest is strongly encouraged, it should be pretty obvious that you are in a proffession where the chances are better than average that someone somewhere someday will shoot at you.

 

Just another RIDICULOUS lawsuit, filed by a couple of complete idiots. Thanks guys, thanks alot.

 

/rant

[ghaverkamp]

Salaries are in my opinion irrelevant in this discussion. This is just stupid. Thanks to these two jackasses, police officers now have one more thing that brings negative attention to them.

 

I figured more people would blame the attorney who took the case.

 

Unfortunately, the article is long, and most people probably won't get to the third officer who was shot (and has since been medically retired), who chose to take no part.

[bakerzdosen]

I figured more people would blame the attorney who took the case.

 

Unfortunately, the article is long, and most people probably won't get to the third officer who was shot (and has since been medically retired), who chose to take no part.

Yeah, lotsa big wurds to be reedin'

 

I got that far but was so disgusted with the guys actually pushing the lawsuit that I didn't mention it.

 

I'm a fan of that last guy. He's the only one of the three that I wouldn't look so down on for a suit like this. I'd still think poorly of him, but I could find SOME rationale to it.

[David]

John, do you know what the reasoning is for non-tobacco use as a requirement? That one kind of stands out on the list, and I'm not sure why it would even be on there.

[Whip]

John, do you know what the reasoning is for non-tobacco use as a requirement? That one kind of stands out on the list, and I'm not sure why it would even be on there.

 

Health insurance costs???????????

[azpilot06]

Sorry, but that's not even remotely true.

...

Now I'll admit that it surprises even other cops that some officers make it through the process. However, I'd challenge you to tell me the last job for which -you- had to jump through this many hoops.

 

Critical reading apparently isn't a component of those hoops. I didn't write that it's a trivial process; I wrote that the requirements aren't the strictest. There's a huge differ

 

ence between process and requirements. It's not as if the line of applicants for the jobs are chock full of the best and brightest.

 

I know a thing or two about jumping through hoops, and my hoops don't even promise a job at the end.

 

Since you claim to be a fan of critical reading, here's something for you to chew on...

 

From Wikipedia.com...(the world's most authoritative resource on everything)

 

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

 

When you state that a standard is not strict, it is implicit that you believe the standard to be loose. It is an (unfounded) assumption on your part that police applicants are not held to a high standard of admission or training, given that the applicant pool is, as you put it "not chock full of the best or the brightest."

 

Not to subvert the topic of the thread too mightily, but it strikes me that you enjoy the relative luxury of the safety and security that law enforcement officers provide to you, while quite possibly not possessing the faintest idea of what it takes to provide it. I too was once of the opinion that cops were basically knuckle-draggers - the people who went to a civil service job because they didn't know what to do after their high-school football days. I went on a single ride-along (really, on a lark), and it changed my life.

 

Let's not confuse stupid with misguided, and in this case, maybe just a bit greedy. While a number of people would look at these cops and say "what a bunch of twits" (and many of those people are other cops), it's not entirely unreasonable (and unAmerican) to think that people who were wounded by gunfire might be convinced by family members, colleagues, or even attorneys that they're entitled to financial redress for sustaining a life-changing injury on the job. I didn't say that I agree with them in this particular case...but there's nothing about this lawsuit that's unique to "cop perspective," or "cop stupidity."

 

While I hold a "real job" that compensates me at a far higher level than would be possible as a full-time police officer, there's not a single thing I can do at my highly-paid "real job", that would match importance to what I've done at my completely-unpaid Police job. Although my real job is far more profitable, the police department is the only place to which I've ever applied that actually wanted to see the originals of every single credential or certification I claimed to have (undergrad degree, pilot's license, etc.), even though most of them didn't pertain to the minimum standards required to certify as a police officer.

 

In contrast, I've secured most of my "real jobs" with very nice salaries on the basis of a 30-minute interview, a credit check, and a felony conviction check. Hardly demanding criteria for entrance - if you can talk a good game in the interview, you've got a good chance of getting the job.

 

Of course, in the "real world", I can get canned if I don't perform on the job. Oddly enough, it's the same in the police world, even though I do that job without financial compensation.

 

In my real job, I might get in some trouble if I get caught in a lie.

 

In the police world, I lose my job, and probably get sent before a state charging board, where I'd be stripped of my law enforcement certification, and never be allowed to work in the field again.

 

In my real job, if I screw up, we may lose some customers, or lose some money.

 

In the police world, someone may lose their life. That someone may be me.

 

My real job doesn't really care if I get popped for a DUI...or if I beat my wife...or if I cheat on my taxes. As long as I keep that stuff out of the office, and continue to show up on time and make money for the company each day, they're happy to have me there.

 

Any one of those things (along with a laundry list of other things) would get me disciplined or terminated in the police world....even though they did not happen on-duty.

 

Some may feel that more people aren't attracted to police work because it's dullard's work, with undemanding standards and poor pay. I suppose that's possible. However, there are many (and I'm one of them) who would submit that most people don't feel that it would be "worth it" to subject themselves to that kind of personal risk, constant scrutiny, and general public disdain, for low pay in a "light blue collar" profession.

 

If you took a bullet while doing -your- job, would you feel like maybe someone owed you some money? Oddly enough, most cops wouldn't (as evidenced by the reactions here), more out of a sense of honor, rather than lack of financial need.

 

Clearly the stuff of low standards and undemanding criteria.

[motorman587]

John, do you know what the reasoning is for non-tobacco use as a requirement? That one kind of stands out on the list, and I'm not sure why it would even be on there.

 

Health insurance costs???????????

 

It was part of our contract, that we sign when we get hired. The city pays for half of our health insurance and that was what the city wanted back then. I got grand fathered in back in 88 where the wording was "smoking" vs. "tobacco" use. Meaning a few of use can chew/dip and not get in trouble. They use to make use do pee test until budget cuts.

[motorman587]

I don't really understad what the officers truly expect to get out of this.

 

Year after shootout, deputies seek $8 million from widow

 

Seems the respondent is judgment-proof. At least the dog seems to be adjusting well.

 

Salaries are in my opinion irrelevant in this discussion. This is just stupid. Thanks to these two jackasses, police officers now have one more thing that brings negative attention to them.

 

If you don't want to take the risks, then don't take the job! When you work in a job where wearing a bullet-proof vest is strongly encouraged, it should be pretty obvious that you are in a proffession where the chances are better than average that someone somewhere someday will shoot at you.

 

Just another RIDICULOUS lawsuit, filed by a couple of complete idiots. Thanks guys, thanks alot.

 

/rant

 

One time on Judge Judy, I believe a motor cop sued a motorist for a false complaint. She was the daughter of cop, I guess she thought she could get off the ticket. She field a rudeness complaint which was unfounded. He sued and won. $5000. Due you think this part of the job too? In my neck of the woods complaints, even if found not to happend or BS, is like handled, part of the job, meaning, get over it. Hope this isn't a hijack.

[Shaman97]

One time on Judge Judy, I believe a motor cop sued a motorist for a false complaint. She was the daughter of cop, I guess she thought she could get off the ticket. She field a rudeness complaint which was unfounded. He sued and won. $5000. Due you think this part of the job too? In my neck of the woods complaints, even if found not to happend or BS, is like handled, part of the job, meaning, get over it. Hope this isn't a hijack.

 

Well, we don't know the whole story, so it's difficult to assume the officer was or wasn't 'rude'. Geez, some folks have glass egos, and I'm talking of both the cop and the lady that got the ticket.

 

What's troublesome with the sheriff's deputies' lawsuit is it appears that they are trying to recoup 'something' from the very person that lost the most that day - the mother/wife of the slain 34 year old man. This woman lives with death on a daily basis - she works in a hospice - her statement of the day was that she was glad to see that the officers were still alive after the incident; it gave her some semblance of peace following the utter loss she sustained.

 

Now, these two yokels want to make her suffer even more.

 

We sure don't want to see our deputies shot at, but if they are, we equip them with training and materials to handle the outcome as best they can - and they did. They killed the son who was shooting at them (lured them into the woods, actually). Tragic, but it would have been surprising if the son weren't killed, given the circumstances.

 

So, they responded the way they were trained to, in a job they pursued, and they all lived to tell the tale.

 

Correctional officers get stabbed on the job, firefighters get burned, and cops get shot at. It's the hazards of the profession.

 

Leave the woman alone to care for the terminally ill, and their families; she's suffered enough.

[ghaverkamp]

*sigh*

 

rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim

 

Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure I did address the substance (or lack thereof) of your argument. That should be obvious to most from the very text of mine that you quoted.

 

When you state that a standard is not strict, it is implicit that you believe the standard to be loose.

 

It means that I don't consider there to be terribly stringent requirements, yes. In its place, you threw down a battery of tests, the bulk of which focused on mental state and criminal record. Requirements that "aren't the strictest" are certainly looser than whatever the strictest are, and I suppose in direct contrast are loose. But none of that's particularly relevant, anyway.

 

Maybe it's the word "requirements" that's confusing you. The requirements for most departments are clearly listed. John posted some earlier in the thread. Do those requirements seem particularly strict to you? Most folks I know turned 21 with at least 2 years of college completed, are non-tobacco users, and have no felony convictions.

 

It is an (unfounded) assumption on your part that police applicants are not held to a high standard of admission or training, given that the applicant pool is, as you put it "not chock full of the best or the brightest."

 

But a high standard in comparison to what? We started down this path because John took issue with the statement in the article that police are paid well for the assuming the risk in risky situations.

 

Let's compare. The City of San Francisco says that its starting salaries for new officers ranges between $75,868 and $101,556, though I assume numbers above $75,868 are for laterals, former military police officers, etc. At the minimum, you must have lived to the age of 21 and managed to get a GED. Those are the requirements.

 

Whereas some friends of mine will soon be starting work for the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. They've received undergraduate degrees, law degrees, done well enough to get a competitive position with the city, undergone an extensive background check, done internships during the summers, and passed the California bar exam. They'll make around $65,000, won't qualify for overtime, and have a less generous retirement and benefits package.

 

It's difficult for me to see how a person who can get a job with only a GED and a relatively clean criminal record and get compensated at a higher level is not being paid for assuming the additional risks of that job, and by my reckoning, being compensated rather well for taking those risks.

 

I too was once of the opinion that cops were basically knuckle-draggers - the people who went to a civil service job because they didn't know what to do after their high-school football days. I went on a single ride-along (really, on a lark), and it changed my life.

 

I never expressed an opinion that cops are knuckle draggers. I know too many cops, both on this board and elsewhere (I graduated from law school with a just-medically retired sheriff's deputy) to believe that. That the applicant pool isn't filled with the brightest of sorts doesn't mean that there aren't gems. In turn, you end up with yokels like those in this story, coupled with an attorney who, on the surface, quite possibly thinks he's brighter than he really is.

[azpilot06]

Let's compare. The City of San Francisco says that its starting salaries for new officers ranges between $75,868 and $101,556, though I assume numbers above $75,868 are for laterals, former military police officers, etc. At the minimum, you must have lived to the age of 21 and managed to get a GED. Those are the requirements.

 

Whereas some friends of mine will soon be starting work for the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. They've received undergraduate degrees, law degrees, done well enough to get a competitive position with the city, undergone an extensive background check, done internships during the summers, and passed the California bar exam. They'll make around $65,000, won't qualify for overtime, and have a less generous retirement and benefits package.

 

It's difficult for me to see how a person who can get a job with only a GED and a relatively clean criminal record and get compensated at a higher level is not being paid for assuming the additional risks of that job, and by my reckoning, being compensated rather well for taking those risks.

 

An attorney will never, in the course of duty, face a knife, a loaded gun, or a machete.

 

An attorney will never have bare-handed contact with HIV or Hepatitis-infected blood, or never have close contact with someone who has active TB.

 

It is not generally recommended that an attorney wear body armor to work.

 

An attorney will never have to make a decision, in less than a second, with incomplete information, to take a life.

 

At attorney does not work on anything (other than a bar tab) at 2AM, without charging double rate.

 

An attorney is never asked or required to drive a motor-vehicle at speeds in excess of 100mph in the course of his or her duties.

 

 

Now make no mistake, I am not implying that being an attorney is a job that doesn't deserve compensation at a high level. That's a whole different post. In fact, good attorneys often make a very handsome living.

 

To further follow your line of reasoning, when you speak of requirements, you are speaking of that which is _required_, as a minimum standard to make application. Meeting those requirements allow you to start. They do not guarantee that you'll finish, or be hired.

 

While those same attorneys who make $65,000 to start will almost assuredly make substantially more by the end of their career (if they're worth their salt.) However, those same attorneys would surely be welcome to pursue a more "highly paid" career with the SFPD...if they're able to meet the standards for admission and training, and are personally up to the tasks required.

 

In a typical hiring process for a major city agency, there are often in excess of 1,000 applicants for each testing process. Maybe 50 will be selected for training, and of those 50, 40-45 will complete training, and 35-40 may still be employed at the end of probation.

 

Viewed in an alternate light, you can consider that police agencies, as government agencies, pay the minimum amount they have to, in order to recruit and retain adequate staffing levels for the job at hand. They certainly do not go out of their way to pay more than what's required, and they do not have illusions about recruiting out of more highly compensated pools of employees.

 

I'd submit that the SFPD pays $75K per year not out of a sense of altruism, but rather because they can't get an adequate number of people who can meet the standards for training and performance for less.

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

To further follow your line of reasoning, when you speak of requirements, you are speaking of that which is _required_, as a minimum standard to make application. Meeting those requirements allow you to start. They do not guarantee that you'll finish, or be hired.

 

Yes. That's why I used the word. Those are the things that are required to hold the job. Sheesh.

 

Obviously, meeting the requirements doesn't mean that a person will also meet the criteria set for selection.

 

I'd submit that the SFPD pays $75K per year not out of a sense of altruism, but rather because they can't get an adequate number of people who can meet the standards for training and performance for less.

 

They have to pay that much in order to find people who are willing to take the risk and meet their standards. If there was no risk involved, some of the hiring criteria would be eliminated. Beyond that, I'm simply not buying that, if the risks could be eliminated, that there would be a shortage of people able to qualify to be police officers. The risk is an integral part of the job.

 

The whole point of the comment that led us down here is that police are compensated for the risk. They are compensated despite having requiring little more than middling credentials.

 

I'm neither arguing for higher pay for municipal attorneys nor lower pay for police. I'm suggesting that given the requirements to become a police officer, it is clear that the compensation includes an assumption of the risks you described.

 

An attorney will never, in the course of duty, face a knife, a loaded gun, or a machete.

 

Never's a pretty big word. You must not speak to many prosecutors or public defenders.

 

At attorney does not work on anything (other than a bar tab) at 2AM, without charging double rate.

 

You must not know many attorneys.

 

 

[ERdok]

Sorry for the hijack but thought this would be a good time to inject a little humor into the discussion.

 

Only in Montana...

 

A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a sheriff's deputy.

 

He thinks he is smarter than the deputy since he is a lawyer from California and is certain he is better educated than any cop from Butte, Montana. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the Montana deputy's expense.

 

The deputy says, 'License and registration, please.'

 

'What for?', says the lawyer.

 

The deputy says, 'You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign.'

 

Then the lawyer says, ' I slowed down and no one was coming.'

 

'You still didn't come to a complete stop, says the deputy, License and registration please.'

 

The lawyer says, 'What's the difference?'

 

'The difference is you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law, License and registration please, and no BS!' the deputy says.

 

Lawyer says, 'If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration; and you give me the ticket. If not, you let me go and don't give me the ticket.'

 

'That sounds fair. Please exit your vehicle sir,' the deputy says.

 

At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the ever-loving crap out of the lawyer and says, ' Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?'

[PRC]

Again, Dok has hit the nail on the head...pun intended!

[motorman587]

The whole point of the comment that led us down here is that police are compensated for the risk. They are compensated despite having requiring little more than middling credentials.

 

I did not add, but I forgot that you must also + or- cost of living in the area that the officer works. I could not afford a home in the city I work in or county, so my family had to move. My wife had to work also to afford 1 car and 1 house. I believe and again, add in EMS, firefighters, LEOs and soldiers. We and they do not get paid enough for what we do.

[MotorinLA]

One time on Judge Judy, I believe a motor cop sued a motorist for a false complaint. She was the daughter of cop, I guess she thought she could get off the ticket. She field a rudeness complaint which was unfounded. He sued and won. $5000. Due you think this part of the job too? In my neck of the woods complaints, even if found not to happend or BS, is like handled, part of the job, meaning, get over it. Hope this isn't a hijack.

 

I happened to see that episode.

 

The difference here is that the defendant made an unfounded allegation of misconduct against the officer. Case law has established that police officers may sue individuals who make false allegations against them. (A false allegation is not something an officer should have to put up with, as it is generally just retaliation by an upset citizen/violator/criminal to get back at the officer for doing his/her job.)

 

Note too that the motor officer did not intend to keep the money from the case for himself, rather he planned to donate it to charity.

 

These two cases just don't compare, really. One is about teaching a spoiled brat a lesson, the other is about... making money? As far as I can tell this does appear to be the main motive of the two deputies.

 

/hijack