Nevada cops sued: forced occupation of private homes

[CountDeMoney]

Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something.  It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.

That comes from a sense of a lack of accountability within an organization without proper leadership and supervision.  And that starts at the top.

[Razgovory]

Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something.  It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.

That comes from a sense of a lack of accountability within an organization without proper leadership and supervision.  And that starts at the top.

Yeah, I know.  You got a keep a close eye on cops.  They'll run amok without a strong hand to keep them in line. I remember our old police chief saying that the police force attracts a lot of bad apples who want to have the authority to push people around.  Since they make up a significant percentage of the people there you can't fire all these jackasses, so you really need to keep them on a tight leash.  After he left the new police chief was injured somehow and was paralyzed from the waist down and sometimes couldn't move his arms.  The city was afraid of firing a cripple, so they kept him on.  It didn't take long till you had a lot of cases of abuse and corruption.

[The Minsky Moment]

Just out of curiosity, why would they go with a quartering argument, as opposed to, say, eminent domain?

Eminent domain, no, but:

Their attorney is asking for a trial by jury to hear the case and ideally award his clients punitive damages for violations of the Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress

So they have plenty of other bases covered.

[The Minsky Moment]

Edit: Was confused, the case I was thinking had to do with national guard troops being utilized to replace striking prison guards, so we are probably thinking about same case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey.

That's the one.  2nd circuit.
The incorporation part of the decision is probably sound, in light of what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject in McDonald v. Chicago (the Chicago handgun ban case).

[Barrister]

Just out of curiosity, why would they go with a quartering argument, as opposed to, say, eminent domain?

Eminent domain, no, but:

Their attorney is asking for a trial by jury to hear the case and ideally award his clients punitive damages for violations of the Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress

So they have plenty of other bases covered.

What?  No trespass?

[dps]

Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something.  It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.

That comes from a sense of a lack of accountability within an organization without proper leadership and supervision.  And that starts at the top.

Yeah, I know.  You got a keep a close eye on cops.  They'll run amok without a strong hand to keep them in line. I remember our old police chief saying that the police force attracts a lot of bad apples who want to have the authority to push people around.  Since they make up a significant percentage of the people there you can't fire all these jackasses, so you really need to keep them on a tight leash.  After he left the new police chief was injured somehow and was paralyzed from the waist down and sometimes couldn't move his arms.  The city was afraid of firing a cripple, so they kept him on.  It didn't take long till you had a lot of cases of abuse and corruption.

In all fairness to the police, it's not just cops, though.  Seedy's comments apply to any organization.