No accountability leads to irresponsibility

[draco664]

So, just say you happen to own a Ferarri F50. It's worth three-quarters of a million dollars.

It gets stolen. Hey, it happens.

However, on this occasion, the cops actually find it. Cool eh? Well, the cops hang on to it, you know, to help with their investigation.

Er, okay.

Now, say a cop and a prosecutor decide to take your $750K car out for a spin while it's in their custody and total it. Who'd pay for that?

Not the cops.

The insurance company tried to get the feds to pay for the wreck, but the judge cited a law that stated that the gov is immune to lawsuits when property is in the custody of authorities.

Is it just me that sees anything wrong with this?

[SkullKing]

According to the article the lawsuit was against the government.

so they could still file a suit against the specific agent that was driving the car, no?

[bara]

Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

[HYHYBT]

The law needs work, but it sounds like the judge's decision was right given things as they are.

[Canarr]

I doubt that you'd have much success getting 750K plus court costs out of the pocket of a LE officer...

Personally, I can see the point of the law; it would just get police and city governments bogged down in tons of lawsuits, when people find some scratch on their stolen or confiscated property and go for the target with the deepest pocket - the government. Still, I hope the agent and prosecutor at least faced some form of punishment.

[Mytical]

Legally right or ethically right? Legally right..unfortunately yes. Ethically right, not so much. While in their custody, an officer decides to go for a joy ride..totals the vehicle, but they are not responsible. I call BS. Not only should the officer be fired (sorry, they basically stole the car), but they should have to pony up the dough.

[Canarr]

For my understanding of justice, both the agent and the prosecutor should have criminal and civil charges brought against them, and be fired from their jobs. After all, they *did* misuse someone else's property that was entrusted to their care; one would hope that the government has rules against that sort of thing.

I agree with the government not being responsible for two of their employees misbehaving, but the people in question should be subjected to a just punishment.

[Panacea]

According to the article the lawsuit was against the government.

so they could still file a suit against the specific agent that was driving the car, no?

Possibly. Usually government employees are immune to lawsuits. However, they might be liable if it can be proved they were abusing the evidence in their chain of custody by utilizing it for a non-governmental purpose.

If the allegation is true, both the FBI agent and the prosecutor should be fired, and have to pay the insurance company for the car (as the insurer has probably already compensated the owner).

[lordlundar]

There's something that I'm surprised no one else brought up yet. That car is evidence, which is why it's seized. By simply getting in the vehicle, the police officer and prosecutor just contaminated the evidence. Yes, I know it's not like a murder occurred or some such situation that require forensic evidence, but it gives the defending attorney a prime reason to call for the charges to be dropped. It also causes a review into any evidence those two have handled which could result in a lot of dangerous people let go.

So naturally, the LEO and the prosecutor should be removed from their positions for no better reason than their actions caused a legal nightmare.

[Andara Bledin]

I imagine that their IA department is raking them both over the coals, now, and their department(s) are running damage control.

If this hadn't gone public, they might have escaped more or less intact, but with the potential for public backlash and the fact that they will likely both, personally, have to defend against lawsuits from the car's owner, there's a good chance they'll be thrown to the wolves unless they're absolutely indispensable.

^-.-^

[Shangri-laschild]

Found longer article here: http://news.yahoo.com/feds-off-hook-...221000918.html

While I think the two in the car should be held responsible, I don't think the judge did anything wrong. Ruling in favor of the insurance sets a legal precedent for being able to sue government. Now if the insurance company were to sue the driver specifically that would be different.

[senor boogie woogie]

Anyone, anyone who pays $750,000 for a car is simply a self important douchebag who wants to be stared at, with a green gherkin shaped penis. Really, why? Yeah, the women would probably like it, but they would like to be in a car for a fraction of the cost of this one and they would not notice. It's a car, a metal box with four wheels, that runs on gas that pollutes the atmosphere. With electric windows and a radio/CD player.

When I was a kid, there was some douchebag running around in a Lamborghini, and I asked my father if that guy would not be afraid of someone stealing his car, and he told me that car was probably the only one of its make in the city and if it was stolen, it would be fairly easy to track it down. A "chop shop" could take it apart, but since few people own that kind of vehicle, parts would not be in demand. It's like stealing a Picasso. It's valuable, but who are you going to sell it to?

If I stole a $750 K car, I would file off the VIN and whatever else model number to the car and try to ship it overseas. But then, I would have to deal with another criminal element to sell it, and make less than 10% of it's overall value and try not to get lead poisoning of the brain, a Columbian necktie or concrete Nike's being nibbled on throughout eternity by fish.

[SkullKing]

Anyone, anyone who pays $750,000 for a car is simply a self important douchebag who wants to be stared at, with a green gherkin shaped penis.

Jealous much?

If he has the money to buy it, and is something that makes him happy. why not?

[draco664]

I don't think the problem is the fact that the government isn't going to pay for the car, the law the judge states is pretty clear.

The problem is that the prosecutor and the cop felt that they were so untouchable that they could do this. That's why I titled the thread so.

[senor boogie woogie]

Jealous much?

If he has the money to buy it, and is something that makes him happy. why not?

Sure，I am jealous of a douchebag who spends that kind of money for a car. Guilty! I could live the rest of my life with the money this guy spent..........for a car! (I also throw up at reading about Powerball lottery winner too.)

Anyone who buys things like these have a psychological need to say "Hey look at me!. Well, I'm sorry, but people who see someone driving a car that would cost a regular person 20 plus years of income is a douchebag.

If I was a billionaire, I wouldn't spend more than $50-75 K for a car if that. This is a pretty pimp BMW sedan, sticker is about $100K, I could bargain it down 20% because the economy sucks. This is a top of the line car, and has everything I want in a car, big, comfortable, an A/C that could make a polar bear shiver, a heater that can make the Devil sweat his bollocks. With AM/FM radio, CD player, some airbags.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...aultan.org.jpg

Ever seen a Bentley? Looks like a Hearst or what Grandpa Munster would drive if he hit the lottery instead of me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ntleyazure.JPG