No Retrial Of Mentally Ill Woman Shot By SFPD

Discussion
1

Dear All;

Recent postings have been about
police shootings gone awry.

Here's one where a mentally ill woman
was tried after "attacking" two police
officers with a knife in her home. The
jury deadlocked on the two counts
at 11-1 against assaulting a police officer
and 7-5 against assault with a deadly weapon.

The DA decided not to re-try after jurors
questioned the mental competence of the
DA in filing charges against the mentally ill
woman in the first place. ( Not really )

Actually the jury questioned trying a
mentally ill woman who in their opinion
after hearing court testimony believed
the woman did not know they were
police officers.

Unfortunately, this means the womans
family in all likelihood will be filing suit
against the City and the SFPD for
taxpayer money in a wrongful shooting
case. Goodbye couple hundred thousand.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/23/BA6K15G2BQ.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

http://snipurl.com/amezy [www_sfgate_com]

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

2

Will probably make Starchild and Eric ecstatic................

3

Yes... one of my favorite "dream reforms" would be for all civil lawsuit penalties assessed against government agencies or personnel to come directly out of the budgets of those agencies, and/or out of the pockets of the personnel themselves. But I still count these judgments as a good thing, because they provide evidence that the public recognizes government wrongdoing for what it is, and because in most cases the victims do deserve compensation.

  Here are a few questions I think are useful for libertarians trying to decide whether a particular cost incurred by government is a good thing or not:

Is the expenditure a transfer of resources from the government sector to the private sector, or would the resources be staying within the government sector?
If the expenditure is a transfer to the private sector, is it a one-time payout, or an ongoing budget item that will create a constituency for more spending?
Is the expenditure being made to compensate persons victimized by some action of government, or being demanded for another reason?
If the expenditure is being made as compensation, will the money be going to the actual victims, or to others?
Is the expenditure being imposed on government against its will, or undertaken voluntarily by those in power as a means of pandering or public relations?
If the expenditure is for a new office or agency, do its structure and incentives make it likely to serve as a check on other government entities or actions, or are its structure and incentives a recipe for more abuse?
In the broadest terms, will the expenditure tend to reduce the power of government, or expand it?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

4

The problem with that reform would be that those agencies would
raise taxes to do it. I'd rather see it come out of the pockets of
the police chief, district attorney, and other city officials.

  The government does however have an obligation to pay restitution
when it abuses citizens in ways like this.

  Yes... one of my favorite "dream reforms" would be for all

civil

lawsuit penalties assessed against government agencies or

personnel

to come directly out of the budgets of those agencies, and/or out

of

the pockets of the personnel themselves. But I still count these
judgments as a good thing, because they provide evidence that the
public recognizes government wrongdoing for what it is, and

because

in most cases the victims do deserve compensation.

  Here are a few questions I think are useful for libertarians

trying

to decide whether a particular cost incurred by government is a

good

thing or not:

Is the expenditure a transfer of resources from the government

sector

to the private sector, or would the resources be staying within

the

government sector?
If the expenditure is a transfer to the private sector, is it a one-

time payout, or an ongoing budget item that will create a
constituency for more spending?
Is the expenditure being made to compensate persons victimized by
some action of government, or being demanded for another reason?
If the expenditure is being made as compensation, will the money

be

going to the actual victims, or to others?
Is the expenditure being imposed on government against its will,

or

undertaken voluntarily by those in power as a means of pandering

or

public relations?
If the expenditure is for a new office or agency, do its structure
and incentives make it likely to serve as a check on other

government

entities or actions, or are its structure and incentives a recipe

for

more abuse?
In the broadest terms, will the expenditure tend to reduce the

power

5

I agree it would be better for the compensation to come out of the pockets of the miscreants themselves, although in some cases it might not be enough to adequately compensate large groups of victims. But having the money come out of individual agency budgets would be an improvement over having it come out of the general fund, which is presently the norm.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

6

That's probably, true, but the rats in government shouldn't be able
to get away with their crimes with no reprecussions. After the FLDS
raid, for example, I proposed that the officials who staged that be
tried for Crimes Against Humanity. And also when you consider that
quite a few in our 'justice' sysyem have profitted quite handsomely
off things like asset forfeiture, 'privatized' prison contracts, and
other largesses, their own assets should be frozen and if found
guilty, used for restitution.

  I agree it would be better for the compensation to come out

of the

pockets of the miscreants themselves, although in some cases it

might

not be enough to adequately compensate large groups of victims.

But

having the money come out of individual agency budgets would be an
improvement over having it come out of the general fund, which is
presently the norm.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

> The problem with that reform would be that those agencies would
> raise taxes to do it. I'd rather see it come out of the pockets of
> the police chief, district attorney, and other city officials.
>
> The government does however have an obligation to pay restitution
> when it abuses citizens in ways like this.
>
> >
> > Yes... one of my favorite "dream reforms" would be for all
> civil
> > lawsuit penalties assessed against government agencies or
> personnel
> > to come directly out of the budgets of those agencies, and/or

out

> of
> > the pockets of the personnel themselves. But I still count these
> > judgments as a good thing, because they provide evidence that

the

> > public recognizes government wrongdoing for what it is, and
> because
> > in most cases the victims do deserve compensation.
> >
> > Here are a few questions I think are useful for libertarians
> trying
> > to decide whether a particular cost incurred by government is a
> good
> > thing or not:
> >
> > Is the expenditure a transfer of resources from the government
> sector
> > to the private sector, or would the resources be staying within
> the
> > government sector?
> > If the expenditure is a transfer to the private sector, is it a

one-

>
> > time payout, or an ongoing budget item that will create a
> > constituency for more spending?
> > Is the expenditure being made to compensate persons victimized

by

> > some action of government, or being demanded for another reason?
> > If the expenditure is being made as compensation, will the money
> be
> > going to the actual victims, or to others?
> > Is the expenditure being imposed on government against its will,
> or
> > undertaken voluntarily by those in power as a means of pandering
> or
> > public relations?
> > If the expenditure is for a new office or agency, do its

structure

> > and incentives make it likely to serve as a check on other
> government
> > entities or actions, or are its structure and incentives a

recipe