Quibbling about the amount is fine. But the principal is solid here for her getting something from the state, or possibly the man himself. He was acting as an agent of the state, so I think they are also responsible to some extent.
And I don't mind the officer being fired. He very clearly abused his power; and a normal citizen has no power in that scenario. You can't resist in the moment, because you get shot. So you just have to go along with it for now, and hope it all turns out OK, which there's no guarantee it will.
When people realize they've screwed up somehow, and now they're worried about the job, how to support their family, perception of them - now all of a sudden, there's lots of inventive to maybe bend the truth a little bit. And with the enormous power of the state behind them, a power few citizens can ever hope to realistically fight, I say the punishment fits the crime here.
i agree that the state bears significant responsibility for having an ill-trained agent but a decade of pay is just egregious profit from local coffers in my eyes. in my opinion, more than a firing and supervisor demotion should occur but financially hampering the always underfunded city police forces is not a way to improve the situation.
but financially hampering the always underfunded city police forces is not a way to improve the situation
Yeah, I somewhat agree. The question then is, what could you do that's better? The woman's rights were clearly violated, and the officers involved as well as the state are the appropriate liable entities. Punishing them will help avoid further issues in the future (and deter others from trying the same thing), but that's not the same as restitution for the victim.
for a day's distress a city should lose an officer on the streets for 5-10 years? nahhhh
a couple grand, the officer being fired and serious updating to officers' training is reasonable. earning enough to retire on at the taxpayers' expense? nahhhh