It's even worse when you think about just how many Dunkin' Donuts there are. It's likely the kids didn't even have to cross a major intersection.
I wholeheartedly agree that the fundamental issue is the complete lack of judicial accountability. These people are getting paid a salary while they harass you, clock out at 5, and their morning routine is to get right back at it. Meanwhile your entire life is personally disrupted due to their power trip and/or malicious mistake, and the best case you can hope for is to be able to walk away?
Whether or not these officers' actions were in line with official department policy, there should be automatic compensation to the victims for their arrest and imprisonment, emotional distress, hiring attorneys and other expenses incurred. And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc.
> And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc.
Have to get rid of qualified immunity first, which we invented (in a total coincidence) at the same time cops really wanted to be thumping civil rights protesters without consequencews.
I agree that qualified immunity is a harmful and bogus precedent that needs to be eliminated. But my point is that if they are acting outside written department policy, then they're no longer acting as an agent of the state in the first place. Like when a cop beats their spouse, they can't claim qualified immunity as if it were part of their policing duties. The same standard should apply during daylight hours when they depart from the mandate of their employment.
> But my point is that if they are acting outside written department policy, then they're no longer acting as an agent of the state in the first place.
> In practice, the doctrine has shielded officers from liability in hundreds of civil cases, even when accused of destroying property, killing innocent people they mistook for suspects or stealing thousands of dollars.
(I would presume stealing thousands of dollars is forbidden by most department policies.)
I responded in the qualified immunity context, but qualified immunity is actually somewhat of a red herring. It certainly does need to be eliminated, but it is not the main problem. In fact the focus on it smells a bit like the common pattern of hoping that occasional extreme penalties on individuals will reform a situation that has poor diffuse incentives.
The main problem is extending blanket sovereign immunity to these actions/positions in the first place. Let's say someone is arrested, even on a good faith suspicion of a bona fide crime, and is then later acquitted or the charges are dropped. From the victim's perspective, what has actually taken place is a kidnapping and false imprisonment. But the current framework just writes off what happened to them as collateral damage, leaving the unlucky individual to bear it themselves. But really they've suffered an externality of policing which they should be reimbursed for. The damages should be rolled into the overall police budget so that it reflects the true cost of the police department.
Right now these externalities are being covered by a perverse reverse lottery of unlucky citizens, which is not right. Reform this perverse incentive and correctly attribute blame (economic blame, at least), and many resulting incentives will fall out from that.
> It's even worse when you think about just how many Dunkin' Donuts there are. It's likely the kids didn't even have to cross a major intersection.
Interesting how that works. My state has zero dunkin donuts. But I live 3 miles from downtown, and pass 5 starbucks, 4 dutch brothers, and a few other independant coffee shops :) but sadly, only one donut shop
I don't know which Dunkin they were going to, but the Dunkin I've been to the most in Killingly was near a major intersection. Depending on what side, they may not have had to cross one.
Growing up, I was allowed to freely travel within my neighborhood, but not cross the main roads. There was a Dunkin I could safely get to without crossing any big streets.
I wholeheartedly agree that the fundamental issue is the complete lack of judicial accountability. These people are getting paid a salary while they harass you, clock out at 5, and their morning routine is to get right back at it. Meanwhile your entire life is personally disrupted due to their power trip and/or malicious mistake, and the best case you can hope for is to be able to walk away?
Whether or not these officers' actions were in line with official department policy, there should be automatic compensation to the victims for their arrest and imprisonment, emotional distress, hiring attorneys and other expenses incurred. And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc.