I don't pretend to know Texas tort law, so I'll restrict my comments to possible federal civil rights suits. It is relevant, but not decisive, that Guyger was off duty. The threshold inquiry for a federal civil rights suit is "state action" or action "under color of law." Was Guyger doing what she did relying, even wrongly, on her status as a cop? Probably not. Being off duty is only part of the analysis. Off-duty cops do cop things all the time, either literally or metaphorically flashing their badges, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. An off-duty cop who flashes his badge to break up a bar fight and gets a bit rambunctious about it is acting as a cop, using his authority as a cop to get involved in the matter, and can be sued. If he goes home later and beats up his wife, he isn't, and can't. That's just private wrongdoing by a person who happens to be a cop. He wasn't literally or metaphorically flashing his badge and using that status to beat up his wife. (He may have been relying on his status for protection from his brothers in blue, and may have thought that his wife would consider complaining to the cops futile for the same reason, but that is not the same thing.)
Here, it seems, Guyger's story is that she was acting as a confused private citizen who ended up in the wrong apartment and did what an armed and panicky private citizen might do. She wasn't investigating something she thought was going on in the apartment or chasing someone she thought was a criminal into it. Nothing she did, whatever we believe about her story, depended on her status as a cop. She may be a badly-trained cop, and a municipality can be held liable for improper training, but the act still has to be a "cop" act before you get to that. If the city does a bad job of training its cops to drive, that wouldn't make the city liable if she got drunk off duty and ran someone over.
Maybe some Texas lawyer can weigh in on state-law wrongful death suits.
I worked on a criminal bank fraud case in the mid-80's in which I thought we had a defense to the mail/wire fraud claim. In that case, the fraud was completed and the funds taken in person. The only use of the mails and wires was to deposit the already fraudulently obtained funds into the crooked bank's account. While I was working on it, Schmuck came down, making me feel like, well, a schmuck.
Do you really want to put the question of who the asshole is in the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas scenario up to a majority vote? I don't think much of the idea, but not because I fear the result.
“Let’s put this national religion thing up to a vote of The People!”.
We did that, more or less, in the 1780's, though some folks might want a do-over. But what has any of that to do with who is being the asshole in an ordinary social interaction?
It's certainly not true that everything is political; it's just that, in sports as in so much else, almost nobody objects to the things that are political unless they disagree with the politics. As an ESPN watcher, I don't pay much attention to the politics -- any of the politics -- but I swallow the ordinary political stuff and, when some out of the ordinary political stuff happens, wait for people who object to the out-of-the-ordinary politics to whine about keeping the politics, that is to say, somebody else's politics, out of sports. I'm never disappointed.
There is, to be sure, a principled case for keeping all sorts of politics out of sports, but the decision-makers aren't interested in principle; they're interested in what sells their product.
Just gathering information here. How many of you have ever been in an armed civilian defense situation? If you have, what weapon did you have? How many shots did you fire?
There's blackface and there's blackface. My African-American in-laws and friends tell me they have no problem with blackface that is, for example, a respectful homage to an actual black person (I have threatened for years to do Tina Turner, complete with music, but I'd have to shave my facial hair so I haven't followed through), but object to stereotypical "coon" portrayals.
O'Sullivan's law, for those who don't recognize the name, is that any organization that does not start out explicitly right-wing gradually becomes left wing. That's true because, as a different cliche has it, reality has a liberal bias.
Remember all the slurs against the personal character of Robert Bork? I didn't think so. There was a great deal of discussion -- some of it rather heated and more rhetorically purple that some would like, but little of it actually false -- about his record and stated judicial philosophy. How dare anyone criticize the record and stated judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court candidate.
On “Jury Finds Amber Guyger Guilty”
Like my hypothetical off-duty cop wifebeater.
"
I don't pretend to know Texas tort law, so I'll restrict my comments to possible federal civil rights suits. It is relevant, but not decisive, that Guyger was off duty. The threshold inquiry for a federal civil rights suit is "state action" or action "under color of law." Was Guyger doing what she did relying, even wrongly, on her status as a cop? Probably not. Being off duty is only part of the analysis. Off-duty cops do cop things all the time, either literally or metaphorically flashing their badges, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. An off-duty cop who flashes his badge to break up a bar fight and gets a bit rambunctious about it is acting as a cop, using his authority as a cop to get involved in the matter, and can be sued. If he goes home later and beats up his wife, he isn't, and can't. That's just private wrongdoing by a person who happens to be a cop. He wasn't literally or metaphorically flashing his badge and using that status to beat up his wife. (He may have been relying on his status for protection from his brothers in blue, and may have thought that his wife would consider complaining to the cops futile for the same reason, but that is not the same thing.)
Here, it seems, Guyger's story is that she was acting as a confused private citizen who ended up in the wrong apartment and did what an armed and panicky private citizen might do. She wasn't investigating something she thought was going on in the apartment or chasing someone she thought was a criminal into it. Nothing she did, whatever we believe about her story, depended on her status as a cop. She may be a badly-trained cop, and a municipality can be held liable for improper training, but the act still has to be a "cop" act before you get to that. If the city does a bad job of training its cops to drive, that wouldn't make the city liable if she got drunk off duty and ran someone over.
Maybe some Texas lawyer can weigh in on state-law wrongful death suits.
On “The Impeachment Meltdown Begins”
Chip, Mike, don't you know that JoeSal doesn't like cultural references like poetry, essays, and Broadway musicals?
On “Wednesday Writs: Schmuck v. United States”
I worked on a criminal bank fraud case in the mid-80's in which I thought we had a defense to the mail/wire fraud claim. In that case, the fraud was completed and the funds taken in person. The only use of the mails and wires was to deposit the already fraudulently obtained funds into the crooked bank's account. While I was working on it, Schmuck came down, making me feel like, well, a schmuck.
On “Sports and Politics: 1869 and 2019”
They were in English, last I looked.
"
This is what happens when you translate Sal-speak into English.
"
Do you really want to put the question of who the asshole is in the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas scenario up to a majority vote? I don't think much of the idea, but not because I fear the result.
"
“Let’s put this national religion thing up to a vote of The People!”.
We did that, more or less, in the 1780's, though some folks might want a do-over. But what has any of that to do with who is being the asshole in an ordinary social interaction?
"
Well, there’s nothing wrong with snarling “MERRY CHRISTMAS” to the happy holiday wishers.
Well, no. One is politely saying an anodyne thing that happens not to be the preference of the hearer. The other is being an asshole.
"
It's certainly not true that everything is political; it's just that, in sports as in so much else, almost nobody objects to the things that are political unless they disagree with the politics. As an ESPN watcher, I don't pay much attention to the politics -- any of the politics -- but I swallow the ordinary political stuff and, when some out of the ordinary political stuff happens, wait for people who object to the out-of-the-ordinary politics to whine about keeping the politics, that is to say, somebody else's politics, out of sports. I'm never disappointed.
There is, to be sure, a principled case for keeping all sorts of politics out of sports, but the decision-makers aren't interested in principle; they're interested in what sells their product.
On “When a Local Shooting Becomes a National Story”
Just gathering information here. How many of you have ever been in an armed civilian defense situation? If you have, what weapon did you have? How many shots did you fire?
On “Adopt, Don’t Shop”
To each his own, but I've done both, and all my dogs have been rescues, and I have no regrets.
On “Second Photo Surfaces of Justin Trudeau in Blackface”
There's blackface and there's blackface. My African-American in-laws and friends tell me they have no problem with blackface that is, for example, a respectful homage to an actual black person (I have threatened for years to do Tina Turner, complete with music, but I'd have to shave my facial hair so I haven't followed through), but object to stereotypical "coon" portrayals.
On “Epstein Dead”
It would.
On “Making A Conversation Out of Talking Points”
There's a music app that comes with my phone? I don't have to buy something? I guess I'll call my grand-niece.
"
You want fries with that?
"
Actually, we East Coasters are a welcoming bunch. I encourage a visit.
"
Maybe you should get out to Broadway shows more often.
"
O'Sullivan's law, for those who don't recognize the name, is that any organization that does not start out explicitly right-wing gradually becomes left wing. That's true because, as a different cliche has it, reality has a liberal bias.
"
South Pacific.
"
I'm so technologically inept that I don't even know how to find what podcasts are out there and how to get them.
"
Why is a cop afraid of a black guy with a gun?
You've got to be carefully taught. And who can argue with Rodgers and Hammerstein?
On “Brett Kavanaugh Accusations, Again”
This is the sort of thing that happens when you aren't careful about sourcing and you whoop up stories before you have something solid.
"
Remember all the slurs against the personal character of Robert Bork? I didn't think so. There was a great deal of discussion -- some of it rather heated and more rhetorically purple that some would like, but little of it actually false -- about his record and stated judicial philosophy. How dare anyone criticize the record and stated judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court candidate.
"
Remember all the horrible slurs against Neil Gorsuch?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.