• Utah Nurse Arrested for Refusing to Draw Blood Without Warrent
    141 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52844693][B]You're looking at this from the completely wrong direction. You're looking at it as a reward to the nurse. That's wrong. It's a penalty to the police for letting this happen. It ending up as a reward for the nurse is just coincidental.[/B] This is exactly what punitive damages are actually often totally underwhelming in civil cases and criminal cases where it's individuals rather than an organization such as the police or a corporation.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you can believe that I'm not getting this when it's literally what I'm writing in my post. Sure, you call it a "coincidental" while I call it "arbitrary", but that's about it. I'm saying that it [I]shouldn't[/I] be arbitrary, and that suitors shouldn't be compensated beyond their rightful compensatory damages. Punitive damages should be given as fines to be paid to the state or something along those lines instead. I don't have anything against the nurse in question (obviously she acted admirably in accordance with her conscience), but I don't think a system like this should arbitrarily enrich private citizens, when the punitive damages damages could just as rightfully be awarded to anyone else.
Really? They accused her of Obstruction of Justice? This guy hopefully just tossed his career down the drain. There's always complaints that all cops are bad, but they're not. This asshole is a perfect example Edit: wow I posted this late as shit
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52844742]I don't know how you can believe that I'm not getting this when it's literally what I'm writing in my post. Sure, you call it a "coincidental" while I call it "arbitrary", but that's about it. I'm saying that it [I]shouldn't[/I] be arbitrary, and that suitors shouldn't be compensated beyond their rightful compensatory damages. Punitive damages should be given as fines to be paid to the state or something along those lines instead.[/QUOTE] You're not getting it because you're caught up in it being too much for her to get while completely ignoring that the damages needed to be high enough for the police to get the message. [QUOTE]I don't have anything against the nurse in question (obviously she acted admirably in accordance with her conscience), but I don't think a system like this should arbitrarily enrich private citizens, when the punitive damages damages could just as rightfully be awarded to anyone else.[/QUOTE] Also I don't get this at all. The punitive damages are awarded to those who were on the receiving end of the illegal actions. The only person who had that happen here was the nurse. So it's not just arbitrary and couldn't be rightfully awarded to anyone else.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52844777]You're not getting it because you're caught up in it being too much for her to get while completely ignoring that the damages needed to be high enough for the police to get the message. Also I don't get this at all. [B]The punitive damages are awarded to those who were on the receiving end of the illegal actions. The only person who had that happen here was the nurse. [/b]So it's not just arbitrary and couldn't be rightfully awarded to anyone else.[/QUOTE] There are [I]compensatory damages[/I] and [I]punitive damages[/I]. Compensatory damages are there to [I][B]compensate[/B][/I] victims. Punitive damages are there to [I][B]punish[/B][/I] the offending party to change whatever practice led to the suit. If the victim has actually been duly compensated by the compensatory damages, then the victim surely isn't any more deserving of that money than anyone else. Awarding the money paid in punitive damages towards charity, schools, welfare or some other worthy course would be much, much better. You're literally arguing "punitive damages go to the victims, therefore it should go to the victims" in the bolded part, which is a completely worthless argument when I'm arguing that the practice should be changed. Edit: Also I guess I should put "IANAL" around this point, but hey.
I feel like most people would leap at the opportunity to be roughed up by a cop in exchange for 500 grand. And if that's the case, then it shows that the compensation is disproportionate to the offense. Punitive damages, which are about sending a message, are another thing entirely, and there high amounts make sense. But 500k in restitution- paid by taxpayers- does seem excessive.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52844742]I don't know how you can believe that I'm not getting this when it's literally what I'm writing in my post. Sure, you call it a "coincidental" while I call it "arbitrary", but that's about it. I'm saying that it [I]shouldn't[/I] be arbitrary, and that suitors shouldn't be compensated beyond their rightful compensatory damages. Punitive damages should be given as fines to be paid to the state or something along those lines instead. I don't have anything against the nurse in question (obviously she acted admirably in accordance with her conscience), but I don't think a system like this should arbitrarily enrich private citizens, when the punitive damages damages could just as rightfully be awarded to anyone else.[/QUOTE] in the US, court fees from hiring a lawyer and medical fees from something as minuscule as getting a checkup on your wrist from the way she was manhandled can end up costing a combined thousands of dollars. They settled, which means there was some discussion about what it would take for them to take a settlement and it ended up being 500k The compensation is correct. not arbitrary, not coincidental.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52845233]in the US, court fees from hiring a lawyer and medical fees from something as minuscule as getting a checkup on your wrist from the way she was manhandled can end up costing a combined thousands of dollars. They settled, which means there was some discussion about what it would take for them to take a settlement and it ended up being 500k The compensation is correct. not arbitrary, not coincidental.[/QUOTE] "sometimes these things can cost a lot of money" is not a good justification for giving out huge amounts in all cases, whether it's needed or not. And well, if $500k is the correct amount of compensatory damages according to you, I'm puzzled why they were awarded as punitive damages? Let me make it clear that I'm not against people getting half a million dollars (or any amount) if that is what it takes to compensate the damages done to them. If someone racks up medical and attorney expenses because they were run down, [I]obviously[/I] they should get all that money back, as well as any money owed for disability. But they shouldn't get more than that. I've already elaborated at length on my opinion on punitive damages, so I'm not gonna repeat that again.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52844915]I feel like most people would leap at the opportunity to be roughed up by a cop in exchange for 500 grand. And if that's the case, then it shows that the compensation is disproportionate to the offense. Punitive damages, which are about sending a message, are another thing entirely, and there high amounts make sense. But 500k in restitution- paid by taxpayers- does seem excessive.[/QUOTE] Can you imagine being intimidated by the police to disobey the law and violate a patient's rights, then be humiliated on camera in front of your coworkers and forcefully seized and dragged away in handcuffs in a flagrant abuse of authority? Being a victim of police misconduct is a serious event. It's degrading and humiliating. This kind of shit should [i]not[/i] be tolerated by any society that's serious about having a fair and impartial justice system. You know what I don't like my taxes going towards? Corrupt, poorly trained law enforcement.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52845267]Can you imagine being intimidated by the police to disobey the law and violate a patient's rights, then be humiliated on camera in front of your coworkers and forcefully seized and dragged away in handcuffs in a flagrant abuse of authority? Being a victim of police misconduct is a serious event. It's degrading and humiliating. This kind of shit should [i]not[/i] be tolerated by any society that's serious about having a fair and impartial justice system. You know what I don't like my taxes going towards? Corrupt, poorly trained law enforcement.[/QUOTE] You realize this argument could be used no matter the amount of compensation, right? Is $500k definitively the right amount of money? Would $1m be too much? $250k too little?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52845333]You realize this argument could be used no matter the amount of compensation, right? Is $500k definitively the right amount of money? Would $1m be too much? $250k too little?[/QUOTE] This argument is totally meritless and not worth having a protracted discussion over. $500k in the grand scheme of the taxpayer bill is fucking chump change, my man. Save your energy for the real injustices in the tax bill, like the [i]billions[/i] we subsidize to oil companies or the billions of dollars worth of bombs we're selling to Saudi Arabia that they're using to destroy Yemen - all at the taxpayer's expense.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52845386]This argument is totally meritless and not worth having a protracted discussion over. $500k in the grand scheme of the taxpayer bill is fucking chump change, my man. Save your energy for the real injustices in the tax bill, like the [i]billions[/i] we subsidize to oil companies or the billions of dollars worth of bombs we're selling to Saudi Arabia that they're using to destroy Yemen - all at the taxpayer's expense.[/QUOTE] This is an internet forum. Things get discussed. Even things that aren't that important. If you don't like discussing things, feel free to just, y'know, not post.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52845267]You know what I don't like my taxes going towards? Corrupt, poorly trained law enforcement.[/QUOTE] And I don't like my taxes making people rich because some bad shit happened to them, so let's meet in the middle somewhere - use the $500k to improve police training and accountability and also fairly pay the woman for lost wages or whatever and emotional damages?
The damages awarded reflect how ashamed the law enforcement should be. For them to abuse someone whose purpose is to care and treat people for personal gain is absolutely unacceptable. Nurses go through enough torture to then be abused by their own kind unexpectedly.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52844673]I do know what punitive damages are and what their purpose is, I'm just saying that it's out of proportion to award the nurse 500k. That money doesn't appear out of the thin air, it (or at least 50% in this case) comes from tax payers via the city, and while it's fine to award someone compensatory damages, I don't see the point of giving someone nine times the US median household income for a wrongful arrest. It's disproportionate, and worse of all, arbitrary - [b]chances are many people are wrongfully arrested[/b], but suddenly one person is awarded waaaay more for no reason that has to do with their particular case. Punitive damages should be given as fines, not to people who have already been compensated fairly.[/QUOTE] from a legal standpoint, that's actually one of the major factors that comes into play when it comes to awarding punitive damages. They're very rarely given out, and the idea is that the tortfeasor has committed the same tort against a ton of other people who for a variety of reasons (dont know of the right to sue, cost of an attorney, etc) don't actually file suit. The punitive damages award is meant not to overcompensate the plaintiff, but as the name implies, punish the defendant so that they engage with actual changes. [editline]2nd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52844742]I don't know how you can believe that I'm not getting this when it's literally what I'm writing in my post. Sure, you call it a "coincidental" while I call it "arbitrary", but that's about it. I'm saying that it [I]shouldn't[/I] be arbitrary, and that suitors shouldn't be compensated beyond their rightful compensatory damages. Punitive damages should be given as fines to be paid to the state or something along those lines instead. I don't have anything against the nurse in question (obviously she acted admirably in accordance with her conscience), but I don't think a system like this should arbitrarily enrich private citizens, when the punitive damages damages could just as rightfully be awarded to anyone else.[/QUOTE] Why would the damages go to the state if the state has not been wronged by the tortfeasor (and, in this case, actually is the tortfeasor)? That literally runs counter to the idea of what tort suits are about, you're effectively enriching a completely arbitrary and uninvolved party at that point... [editline]2nd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;52845591]And I don't like my taxes making people rich because some bad shit happened to them, so let's meet in the middle somewhere - use the $500k to improve police training and accountability and also fairly pay the woman for lost wages or whatever and emotional damages?[/QUOTE] the 500k is a massive shot across the bow from the judiciary to the executive branch to get their shit together. There's no guarantee that the 500k would actually be used for said programs and to my knowledge there's no mechanism by which the judiciary can force the police to beging undertaking a specific course of action, only stop one. Giving the judiciary the capacity to force a government agency to spend money on a particular program would be a massive overreach - that's literally what the legislature is for. Judges don't like to tread too far past their own boundaries for ethical reasons. They may use injunctions to stop certain activities, but few will force a course of conduct at taxpayer expense. [editline]2nd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52845333]You realize this argument could be used no matter the amount of compensation, right? Is $500k definitively the right amount of money? Would $1m be too much? $250k too little?[/QUOTE] defendants can challenge punitive damages for being excessive. The BMW Gore 3pt. test: degree of responsibility, disparity between harm and damages (taken w/in context of other people not bringing suit on their own claims), and comparable situations and cases. Most time punitive damages come up they'll get appealed. Sometimes the appeal succeeds, sometimes they don't. Depends on the case.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;52847575]from a legal standpoint, that's actually one of the major factors that comes into play when it comes to awarding punitive damages. They're very rarely given out, and the idea is that the tortfeasor has committed the same tort against a ton of other people who for a variety of reasons (dont know of the right to sue, cost of an attorney, etc) don't actually file suit. The punitive damages award is meant not to overcompensate the plaintiff, but as the name implies, punish the defendant so that they engage with actual changes.[/quote] Yes, they're rarely given out, and suddenly you're giving out a lot of money to a single victim - [I]not[/I] (necessarily) because there's anything special about their specific case, but because they were lucky enough that the court wanted to teach someone else a lesson through that particular case. That's arbitrary and not fair to the many other people who may have brought a similar suit. [quote]Why would the damages go to the state if the state has not been wronged by the tortfeasor (and, in this case, actually is the tortfeasor)? That literally runs counter to the idea of what tort suits are about, you're effectively enriching a completely arbitrary and uninvolved party at that point...[/quote] Why would the punitive damages go to the person bringing the suit if they have already been duly compensated? Let's say that a similar suit has been filed nine times, but on the tenth time the court awards the same compensatory damages, but ten times that as punitive damages because it's far past the time for the offending part to learn their lesson. Now ten similar suits have been filed, but the last one brought in as much money as all the others, despite being no different from those. Don't the other nine suitors have as much of a claim to that money? Then think about all those who have been wronged similarly (wrongful arrests are probably a fairly common thing), but do not file suit because they don't have the resources or do not know about that recourse. Are they not much, much more deserving of some of that money? Some of them may even be indirectly paying for the windfall through taxes. Sure, in this case the city was on the wrong side of the suit, but the money could be spent more fairly in many other avenues - charity for example. [quote]the 500k is a massive shot across the bow from the judiciary to the executive branch to get their shit together. There's no guarantee that the 500k would actually be used for said programs and to my knowledge there's no mechanism by which the judiciary can force the police to beging undertaking a specific course of action, only stop one. Giving the judiciary the capacity to force a government agency to spend money on a particular program would be a massive overreach - that's literally what the legislature is for. Judges don't like to tread too far past their own boundaries for ethical reasons. They may use injunctions to stop certain activities, but few will force a course of conduct at taxpayer expense. defendants can challenge punitive damages for being excessive. The BMW Gore 3pt. test: degree of responsibility, disparity between harm and damages (taken w/in context of other people not bringing suit on their own claims), and comparable situations and cases. Most time punitive damages come up they'll get appealed. Sometimes the appeal succeeds, sometimes they don't. Depends on the case.[/QUOTE] Look, I'm not saying this is how the judicial system works, but I'm saying that in principle this is not how I'd like it to work. Punitive damages should go to the common good, not to enrich a single person who were lucky enough to have their case picked as an example. If it's simply not possible to make it work differently, fair enough, sometimes things are sub-optimal - but I simply do not agree that it's completely fair that she is awarded that much money; many people subside on very little, and public money shouldn't be awarded as some kind of arbitrary welfare lotto, where someone wins out on pure luck. I'd rather this money (obviously not any money that would've paid as compensation) went to treating, say, heroine addicts or hepatitis in homeless people or whatever else; they're equally deserving and much more in need.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52844721]She essentially got rich by being lucky enough to be wrongfully arrested, in a sense. [I]Most people would be willing to go through what she did for that money. [/I] That shouldn't be the case.[/QUOTE] You mean doing their fucking job?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52848759]You mean doing their fucking job?[/QUOTE] Violating people's constitutional rights is standard police practice? Thanks for verifying. e: I believe I misread you. Are you talking about the nurse? In which case I'll say that dealing with police attempting to violate a patient's rights, then getting unlawfully arrested, is definitely not something you're expected to do five days a week as a nurse.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52848780]Violating people's constitutional rights is standard police practice? Thanks for verifying. e: I believe I misread you. Are you talking about the nurse? In which case I'll say that dealing with police attempting to violate a patient's rights, then getting unlawfully arrested, is definitely not something you're expected to do five days a week as a nurse.[/QUOTE] This is a horrific experience as a professional advocating for a patient. To have the very basis of your profession abused by the police it's like being in Iraq or something.
Dumb question, but how would punitive fines work on a government agency? State would pay to the federal government? Because police paying the state can easily result in a loop of money going back to the police if the executives disagree with the courts and don't think the police diid something wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.