Redneck pigs, go figure.

.... and those 2 fags who start yelling like little girls while she gets her ass kicked.

Um, I know myself well enough to know I would never stand idly by. What worthless shits.

a) fucking took them long enough

b) why didn't someone pick up a chair?

c) that music'd make me violent too

I just saw this chick on the Chicago news tonight. Fuking hawt Polski girl. More precisely, a fuking hawt Polski girl w/a high-priced, bad-assed solicitor. She's gonna get mad money out of the city.

not so sure. he was off-duty. the city should be no more liable than any other company could be held liable for something one of their employees does off the clock.

^- dude, you know that shit would never fly.

que?

maybe off screen somewhere he flashed his badge, used his cuffs or pulled a gun. but if he didnt, i cant see how the city could be held liable.

They had two opportunities to straighten his ass out after incidents in 1992 and 1999. In '92, he got busted for DUI; in '99, he was the subject of a federal probe in the beating of an arrestee, which resulted in the man's death. Chicago continued to put this shitpile out on the streets of the city with a gun and a badge. Therein lies their culpability.

I expect to see this blogged ASAP on bflora's chicagoblog.

police violence?

WHY I NEVAR!

In Clavis-World: - Assuming this guy was a city treecutter (with similar history of dui, beatings, etc) and the city continued to employ him, and then he got drunk and beat up a bartender (during his off-hours) , would the city still be culpable or does it just apply to cops?

You can't compare a treecutter (wtf) to a cop, whose motto is 'to serve and protect', not 'occasionally act like the trash I arrest.'

why does it matter that he is an officer if he wasn't on duty when he assaulterd her?

generally speaking,t he law is that an employer can only be held liable for the actions of an employee when that employe is acting within the course and scope of his/her employment (eg, on duty). If there's no 'cop related' activity going on when the tort occurs, i cant see the liability.

None of this is to say the city won't be sued, i'm just saying unless there is evidence that his actions fell within the course an scope of his being a cop, it will be thrown out.

I imagine one could make the claim that the city's hiring processes for its law enforcement, which are expected to at the very least filter out miscreants, certainly screwed the pooch on this one, yes?

absolutely. he shouldn't be allowed to be a cop. probably never should have been. no argument from me.

And since employers are allowed to use actions by employees on their own free time as a basis for firing them, this act should result in his being fired (and kicked repeatedely in the balls until he pukes blood).

But the mere fact that he was employed by the city, albeit in a position of trust, does not necessitate that the city be held liable for anything and everything he does.

The reverse of this argument (which I am not neccessarily promoting) is that off-duty police officers routinely involve themselves in police work; stopping robberies, getting into shootouts, tazoring the occasional ten year old just for giggles, etc. This behaviour is deemed 'good' and 'right' and reflective of a well-functioning police force, and is generally taken to be indicative of the assertion that policing is a 'lifestyle' and not a 'job'.

Bottom line: Bear in mind that generally speaking, the bulk of the police force of today is made up of individuals who were rejected by the military. Think about that for minute...

this'd make a good budweiser commercial.