With
2013-2014 being the deadliest years ever recorded for people killed by police, could it be that police feel so protected by the American justice system that they are willing to shoot first and ask questions later because they know the likelihood that they will
ever serve a day in jail or pay even a single dime for their actions is highly unlikely?
In a recent Mother Jones article by Jaeah Lee, the clear case is made that Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who already lost several lawsuits for police misconduct, will likely not pay a dime for killing Eric Garner.
Instead, taxpayers will shoulder the cost. Between 2006 and 2011, New York City paid out $348 million in settlements or judgments in cases pertaining to civil rights violations by police, according to a UCLA study published in June 2014. Those nearly 7,000 misconduct cases included allegations of excessive use of force, sexual assault, unreasonable searches, and false arrests. More than 99 percent of the payouts came from the city's municipal budget, which has a line item dedicated to settlements and judgments each year. (The city did require police to pay a tiny fraction of the total damages, with officers personally contributing in less than 1 percent of the cases for a total of $114,000.)
This scenario is typical of police departments across the country, says the study's author Joanna Schwartz, who analyzed records from 81 law enforcement agencies employing 20 percent of the nation's approximately 765,000 police officers. (The NYPD, which is responsible for three-quarters of the cases in the study, employs just over 36,000 officers.) Out of the more than $735 million paid out by cities and counties for police misconduct between 2006 and 2011, government budgets paid more than 99 percent. Local laws indemnifying officers from responsibility for such damages vary, but "there is little variation in the outcome," Schwartz wrote. "Officers almost never pay."
For the rest of us, while we may be governed primarily by ethics or a moral code, we go out of our way to avoid certain actions with the full knowledge that harassing, harming, or killing someone would likely have severe physical and financial consequences. If the bulk of the consequences for the most egregious actions committed by police were removed from society like they are overwhelmingly removed for law enforcement, our nation may very well erupt into a full-blown civil war with violence and mayhem of epic proportions.
Lee goes on to explain that our very own Supreme Court has, in essence, given officers complete immunity from civil rights claims filed by families of victims.
In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers should be afforded "qualified immunity" from civil rights claims brought by citizens—the risk of legal exposure could deter officers from carrying out their duties, the court has held—except in cases where an officer has violated "clearly established law." Yet, in other cases the Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities should not be liable for damages incurred by its employees, and that punitive damages can't be awarded against cities. In a 1981 majority opinion, Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun stated that if municipalities were held liable for civil claims, it could lead to tax hikes or "a reduction of public services for the citizens footing the bill. Neither reason nor justice suggests that such retribution should be visited upon the shoulders of blameless or unknowing taxpayers." But in Schwartz's view, cities requiring so few officers to pay even for punitive damages "goes against the spirit of that decision."
If we think officers aren't paying attention to the court decisions that freed officers who beat
Rodney King or
killed Sean Bell and
Amadou Diallo, we're kidding ourselves. Legal precedents and best practices by officers are being set and reset every day with each case that allows officers to do the most egregious acts imaginable with relative impunity.