Comments on: By reader acclaim: “Woman Wins $29,000 for Topless Stroll”

By: Neal Deesit

Neal Deesit — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:34:21 +0000

Just an example of the harm that can come to a police department that fails to keep abreast of the law: a wrongfully imprisoned plaintiff may give it unshirted hell.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:13:40 +0000

“To put it in broader terms, I think that people who screw up should be held responsible for their actions.”

Exactly. We need a system that can do that and we need people to know the system can do that.

“You, on the other hand, seem to want to let the people who actually did the harm off the hook, because it wasn’t really their fault. It was the system’s fault for letting them do it.”

No, not at all. I want to change the system so that the people who actually did the harm are held responsible. I just don’t think the justice system can do that.

Suppose the Postal Service was hiring people who couldn’t see to drive their trucks. You could prosecute each crappy driver for the damages they caused or you could require the Postal Service to ensure their drivers can see.

It’s the Police system that oversees the behavior of beat cops. That system has to set priorities and ensure that those who do not follow those priorities are pushed to do so.

The Justice system can only fix that system when it fails. I would like to see it not fail.

For example, do you believe there’s no need to suppress evidence from warrantless searches? After all, you can still punish the people who screwed up with civil suits.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:56:29 +0000

David, I think you and I have completely different views of what the problem was. I think the problem was some really bad cops. You think the problem was a system in need of adjustment.

To put it in broader terms, I think that people who screw up should be held responsible for their actions.

You, on the other hand, seem to want to let the people who actually did the harm off the hook, because it wasn’t really their fault. It was the system’s fault for letting them do it.

With such divergent views, I don’t think it’s even possible for us to debate the issue.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:57:52 +0000

Firing the cop doesn’t put any pressure on the police administration to ensure people aren’t arrested and detained for non-crimes. Trickling up from the guys on the street to the guys who make policy and run training doesn’t work.

At least damages awards have some chance of trickling down from the people who run the system down through the training and personnel practices. To some extent, it depends what budges these payments come out of.

I admit there has to be a better way. But I’m not sure anyone knows what it is.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:18:28 +0000

“I think Elliott has a point. What is acceptable compensation for the time you spend in jail because the police don’t know (or don’t care) what is and is not a crime? Is there some other way to make sure these things don’t happen?”

I agree with Elliott too. But the solution should have been to fire the cop and ensure he never works in law enforcement again. I simply do not see how giving out an exorbitant amount of money solved anything.

By: Lisa Casanova

Lisa Casanova — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:24:30 +0000

I think Elliott has a point. What is acceptable compensation for the time you spend in jail because the police don’t know (or don’t care) what is and is not a crime? Is there some other way to make sure these things don’t happen?

By: Melvin

Melvin — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:50:12 +0000

No, doing that might make it a “hate crime” . . . $58,000,000.00!!

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:23:31 +0000

She should have exposed her breasts at a dry-cleaners run by Koreans, then the $29,000 could have been $29,000,000.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:23:31 +0000

Being arrested for something which the State’s highest court has previously ruled is not a crime *should* be actionable.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:22:18 +0000

Why is it, I wonder, that Florida, with hundreds of miles of coastline, legally prohibits toplessness except on private, inland properties (which can, in fact, run ‘naturalist’ camps)?

New York doesn’t even have the weather for it!