>


You know teachers and cops are public officials right

Uhhh no they are not. What do you think a public official is? It's generally understood as an elected (or appointed) position that oversees a jurisdiction and can make or interpret laws and policies. Police officers and teachers don't do either. 
If a teacher molests a child, they will absolutely be charged. If a police officer brutalizes someone, they will...well, theoretically be charged, that one's unfortunately a lot more complicated. Neither of them fit into this CMV because they aren't public officials and they don't enact policies. You say "policy or conduct" but those are completely different.
Criminally charging people with destruction of property - dissuades them from destroying property in the first place
Criminally charging politicians for making poor decisions - dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong >

You're missing the point I'm not saying we should criminally charge politicians for making wrong decisions I'm saying if a politician (or any Public Employee) makes such a wrong decision it provokes a lawsuit against the General Public that costs the general public a significant amount of money the General Public should be empowered to criminally charge them with a destruction of public property of that amount of money
( I would agree maybe the term destruction of public property is wrong because it's not destroyed just transferred to the victims but I don't know exactly what you'd call what I'm trying to make a legal to charge them with provoking a lawsuit?) >

Ok, that does not address my point
Criminally charging politicians for making poor decisions - dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong
You would discourage politicians from doing anything (and probably discourage people from going into politics) if they will be criminally liable for the results of  their policies. You  would also be doing nothing to fix whatever went wrong >

But I'm not saying we should do it for poor decisions they could make as many poor decisions as they want so long as those decisions don't have an observable effect that results in a lawsuit against the taxpayer that causes the taxpayer to pay out
If a public official wants to raise or lower taxes increase or decrease spending change Licensing Laws land use laws hire more public employees or fire some public employees or even create or disband entire agencies this has nothing to do with that or the vast majority of decisions that public officials would make >

If a poor decision did not have a negative observable effect how would it be a poor decision...?
Criminally charging politicians for making decisions with negative observable effects dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong
You would discourage politicians from doing anything (and probably discourage people from going into politics) if they will be criminally liable for the results of their policies. You would also be doing nothing to fix whatever went wrong >

You could have a poor decision that doesn't make anyone a victim you could raise taxes to 99% or abolish taxation entirely both of which would be poor decisions but wouldn't be violating anyone's rights
What is wrong in this case is the taxpayers are footing the bill for public officials extra legal actions and those same public officials aren't being held accountable criminally because of a mix of political influence prosecutor discretion and standards of evidence >

Abolishing taxation would end the government and end society as we know it. How would that not be a poor decision?
OP on this sub you HAVE to respond to my arguments: Criminally charging politicians for making decisions with negative observable effects dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong
Failing to do so is violation of rule B >

I literally said it would be a poor decision did you not read my comment? It's a poor decision it just doesn't violate anyone's rights that's the point I never said we should criminalize poor decisions
Really the argument that i was intending for wasn't about politicians or policy makers but more about the conduct of actual public servants like teachers or cops but if you want me to respond to an argument that I wasn't arguing in the first place fine
A lack of accountability for public officials who blatantly violate people's rights is what is wrong and that is what this seeks to fix so saying that it does nothing to actually fix whatever is wrong is incorrect because what is wrong is the taxpayer footing the bill in million dollar lawsuits while the cause of those lawsuits gets to walk away scot-free >


OP on this sub you HAVE to respond to my arguments:   
Criminally charging politicians for making decisions with negative observable effects dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong  
Failing to do so is violation of rule B >

I responded to the argument that it does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong you also said that I said something I didn't when you said abolishing taxation isn't a bad public policy when I never said that I said it was a bad public policy it just doesn't give anyone standing to sue because their rights have been violated >

Who are you talking about?
The mayor, governour, president who sign a law? The sponsors of a bill? The co-signers? Everyone who votes for it? The people in the relevant agency who carry out a policy?
All those people should be responsible if someone wins a case? What kind of case? You're not clear here at all --

But if they violated the law which cost the government that much money why not just charge them with that crime?  
The reason for this is because of Rules of Evidence and that in a criminal case you need to prove that someone has done something Beyond A Reasonable Doubt which is different from the standard of a civil case that would cost the government the amount of money in the first place which in turn leads to prosecutors just exercising there discretion to not charge government employees because they want to maintain a good working relationship with those agencies however if the mere active provoking the civil case in the first place is illegal it would be much easier to charge them and much more difficult for a prosecutor to argue that they don't think they could prove they did something wrong

I don't know what you're trying to say here at all. Are you saying prosecutors don't bring cases against legislators for (still not sure, see above) because they don't want them getting mad?
Or.... I have no clue, the bolded isn't really English and prosecutors don't bring civil cases.
Can you clarify who you want to charge and with what, in what instances? >

I gave an example of police brutality or teachers molesting children but it could be basically anything that provokes a successful lawsuit
If the governor of the state or legislature signs a law that says kill all people with red hair and then several people with red hair are killed then later on it's ruled unconstitutional and the victims families Sue I don't want the taxpayers to have to foot the bill without the people who enacted a policy that violates their rights being punished
Really I was originally thinking of it as more of a thing about the actual enforcement of laws or the conduct of public officials then the policy making itself but I suppose you could interpret it to be more broad like we just have >


If the governor of the state or legislature signs a law that says kill all people with red hair and then several people with red hair are killed then later on it's ruled unconstitutional and the victims families Sue I don't want the taxpayers to have to foot the bill without the people who enacted a policy that violates their rights being punished

Again, who do you want to foot that bill? The gov? The legislature? The author? The cosponsors? The voters who elected idiots?
Also... you seem not to understand the scope of lawsuits against the government. There are ENDLESS ones. You say in another comment if the legislation ends with lawsuits against the gov't. That's going to cover pretty much everyrhing. >

Yes of course you could sue anyone for any reason but it has to be an actually successful lawsuit
Also even out of successful lawsuits it has to be a case where the only remedy is financial compensation (for instance to use an example of the lawsuit that legalized gay marriage the government lost but the remedy wasn't paying out money to gay people who wanted to get married the remedy was simply declaring any law that prevented gay marriage to be unconstitutional)
Also like another commentary pointed out 95% of cases end in settlements so I don't think it would be as endless as you think it would be >


Also even out of successful lawsuits it has to be a case where the only remedy is financial compensation (for instance to use an example of the lawsuit that legalized gay marriage the government lost but the remedy wasn't paying out money to gay people who wanted to get married the remedy was simply declaring any law that prevented gay marriage to be unconstitutional)

That's a federal case challenging legislation, and there are absolute tons of suits seeking damages over banning same-sex marriage. 

Also like another commentary pointed out 95% of cases end in settlements so I don't think it would be as endless as you think it would be

But you're proposing the defendants in these cases be some manner of individual legislators or law enforcement or court clerks or etc. Those people aren't going to settle a hundred civil suits. They don't have the $$. >

Have there been any successful cases seeking damages over Banning same-sex marriage? I'm not saying a lawsuit is enough to charge them it specifically has to be a successful lawsuit that wasn't settled which removes over 95% of all lawsuits
The civil suit isn't against them the civil suit is against the public I'm saying that if the public loses a civil suit that it didn't settle it should have the authority to charge a public employee that did such conduct that resulted in the suit with a crime equivalent to destruction of property or illegal use of public funds or something else >


Have there been any successful cases seeking damages over Banning same-sex marriage? I'm not saying a lawsuit is enough to charge them it specifically has to be a successful lawsuit that wasn't settled which removes over 95% of all lawsuits

Why are you excepting suits that settle? 
Who is paying for the suits that settle??

I'm saying that if the public loses a civil suit that it didn't settle it should have the authority to charge a public employee that did such conduct that resulted in the suit with a crime equivalent to destruction of property or illegal use of public funds or something else

What if it DID settle?? Who pays? Again. You're suggesting legislators, officials, law enforcement, clerks, whatever, you won't clarify, should pay. WHO pays? 
Also, see Us v. Windsor. >

Because in suits that settle you can't really claim it's entirely their fault because the settlement was a agreement that was made without their consent meaning it was not a court ordered payment to be made but rather a public agreement for a payment to be made
The taxpayer should always pay I never said the taxpayer shouldn't pay I'm saying that if the taxpayer pays as a consequence of a lawsuit the public loses the public should charge whoever cost the taxpayer such a ridiculous amount of money >


Because in suits that settle you can't really claim it's entirely their fault because the settlement was a agreement that was made without their consent meaning it was not a court ordered payment to be made but rather a public agreement for a payment to be made

... someone is going to pay. If you settle and the gov'r is paying damages and your court costs, what is the difference in terms of what you're suggesting than if it was ordered without a settlement? 

The taxpayer should always pay I never said the taxpayer shouldn't pay I'm saying that if the taxpayer pays as a consequence of a lawsuit the public loses the public should charge whoever cost the taxpayer such a ridiculous amount of money

But then the taxpayer ISN'T paying. >

I meant charge as in charge with a crime not charge as in charge an amount of money or credit card >

Can you give a real life example? Because I’m struggling to think of any situation where the causality would be so undeniably clear that you’d have enough evidence to convict the policymaker/official >

Police brutality teachers molesting children basically anything that provokes a massive lawsuit that the taxpayers have to pay the bill for >

Okay, please identify which public officials would be identified as having enacted or executed policies that would have caused them to be charged related to police brutality and/or teachers molesting kids. >

The police officers and teachers themselves because they themselves enacted a policy or conduct of illegal brutality or child molestation?
You know teachers and cops are public officials right >


You know teachers and cops are public officials right

Uhhh no they are not. What do you think a public official is? It's generally understood as an elected (or appointed) position that oversees a jurisdiction and can make or interpret laws and policies. Police officers and teachers don't do either. 
If a teacher molests a child, they will absolutely be charged. If a police officer brutalizes someone, they will...well, theoretically be charged, that one's unfortunately a lot more complicated. Neither of them fit into this CMV because they aren't public officials and they don't enact policies. You say "policy or conduct" but those are completely different. >

All right forget I said public officials if we disagree about that term just pretend every time I said public officials I meant to say public employees because I guess that's more of what I meant
(I do think I'm right about public officials but I don't want to argue about that since it's barely even tangentially related to my post and I really want to change my view on this subject not the other thing teachers and cops are appointed via there Department or school district and public officials have the power to make interpret or enforce law corresponding to the three branches of government legislative judicial and executive public officials like cops and teachers are a part of the executive branch)
A teacher and cop will not be charged if the prosecution assesses that there isn't enough evidence to convict them Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
That's why I think there should be a separate charge that can be used when the public loses a major lawsuit because of a preponderance of the evidence but does not have enough evidence to charge them beyond a Reasonable Doubt for the original crime >


That's why I think there should be a separate charge that can be used when the public loses a major lawsuit because of a preponderance of the evidence but does not have enough evidence to charge them beyond a Reasonable Doubt for the original crime

Okay then it sounds like your view is completely unrelated to your title. You're really arguing that government employees should be held to a lower standard of evidence for alleged wrongdoing. 
It also sounds like you don't understand the difference between a civil and a criminal suit. If a teacher molests someone, they would be charged in criminal court for the crime of rape. If a cop brutalizes someone, they would be charged in criminal court for the crime of assault. Neither of those cases would involve "the public" as the plaintiff because it's not "the public" that was wronged. For "the public" to be part of the case, that would be a civil suit, for which the burden of proof is lower. 

During the majority of civil trials, a plaintiff has the burden to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the jury will need to be convinced, based on all of the evidence, that there is a greater than 50% chance that defendant caused the harm alleged in the lawsuit

It does not have to be beyond reasonable doubt, it has to be greater than 50%. >

No I understand these things and I'm not saying they should be held to lower standards of evidence I'm saying there should be a separate charge entirely that can only come about as a consequence of a substantial lawsuit against the taxpayer
It's not a separate standard of evidence because it's not even the same crime the prosecution in one case would have to prove Beyond a reasonable doubt that they molested a child or brutalized the suspect in the other case all the prosecution would have to prove is that their conduct resulted in a civil case that cost the taxpayer a substantial amount of money
It would still be a criminal case where they would have to prove they are guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt but it is easier to prove something that is a matter of public record like a victory or loss in a lawsuit then prove a disputed set of facts or circumstances regarding brutality or molestation >


I'm saying there should be a separate charge entirely that can only come about as a consequence of a substantial lawsuit against the taxpayer

Was there a typo here? What is a lawsuit against the taxpayer?

It's not a separate standard of evidence because it's not even the same crime the prosecution in one case would have to prove Beyond a reasonable doubt that they molested a child or brutalized the suspect in the other case all the prosecution would have to prove is that their conduct resulted in a civil case that cost the taxpayer a substantial amount of money

This is charging someone twice for the same crime. That's called double jeopardy and it's illegal. You can't seriously treat "being convicted/found guilty in a lawsuit" as a separate offense. >

The public pays taxes to a government therefore all government revenues can be said to come from the taxpayer
No it's not charging them twice for the same crime because like I said in the first case the prosecutor exercise discretion not to charge them because they think that there's only a preponderance of the evidence for the original charge but not proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt however by creating a separate charge it is easier to prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt things that are a matter of public record like whether or not a lawsuit was successful compared to a he said she said of police brutality or child molestation >

Most lawsuits end in some form of settlement. This may be due to a multitude of reasons such as financially, reputation, or simply to get out of the arduous legal process. Lawsuits do not always end because one party was found guilty. In fact 95% of cases end in settlement.
Therefore, I could sue you right now for the detriment of my mental health for this post and assuming you are a policymaker, and if we end in a settlement, you will be charged. Does that sound fair? >

The fact that a lawsuit ended in a settlement could be a defense
I know 95% of cases ended settlements and I actually think that argument is for my position not against it because if people know that if they take their civil case to trial that it make it more likely for the person that violated the rights to be charged that would give them much more bargaining power to either exact more money from a settlement or screw the settlement and try to use the civil case as a mechanism for actually forcing the prosecutor's hand to charge them >

But you wouldn't want public officials to not execute the law from fear of being held personally liable. You wouldn't want the police, for example, to refuse to do lawful things because they don't want to be held liable on the off chance that what they're doing is later challenged in a lawsuit. You wouldn't want the IRS to simply ignore Congress and not collect certain taxes because the IRS is worried they might actually be unconstitutional. And so on. This would create a catch-22 situation for many public officials where they are required by their job to faithfully execute the law (or get fired, or worse) but also personally liable for the outcome of that execution, which would be bad >

I don't want public officials to do anything where there's a significant likelihood that it could be violating someone's rights even if they're not actually violating anyone's rights better safe than sorry is a good model for public officials to have not a bad one >

So in the above example, you think that's a good outcome? The IRS just not carrying out the law as proscribed by the legislation? What then of the rights of the people who passed that law, and the people who voted for those people on the basis that that law be passed and carried out? What of the rights of the people who need the government services those taxes would have paid for? >

The IRS should not carry out the law if they think carrying it out would lead to a lawsuit because someone's rights were violated
If the law is unclear then that's the legislators fault and problem >

But then you just have a government that practically never does anything because everyone in charge of carrying out the law is afraid of their personal liability >

No you have a government that's afraid of violating people's rights wich is a good thing >

Criminally charging people with destruction of property - dissuades them from destroying property in the first place
Criminally charging politicians for making poor decisions - dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong >

You're missing the point I'm not saying we should criminally charge politicians for making wrong decisions I'm saying if a politician (or any Public Employee) makes such a wrong decision it provokes a lawsuit against the General Public that costs the general public a significant amount of money the General Public should be empowered to criminally charge them with a destruction of public property of that amount of money
( I would agree maybe the term destruction of public property is wrong because it's not destroyed just transferred to the victims but I don't know exactly what you'd call what I'm trying to make a legal to charge them with provoking a lawsuit?) >

Ok, that does not address my point
Criminally charging politicians for making poor decisions - dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong
You would discourage politicians from doing anything (and probably discourage people from going into politics) if they will be criminally liable for the results of  their policies. You  would also be doing nothing to fix whatever went wrong >

But I'm not saying we should do it for poor decisions they could make as many poor decisions as they want so long as those decisions don't have an observable effect that results in a lawsuit against the taxpayer that causes the taxpayer to pay out
If a public official wants to raise or lower taxes increase or decrease spending change Licensing Laws land use laws hire more public employees or fire some public employees or even create or disband entire agencies this has nothing to do with that or the vast majority of decisions that public officials would make >

If a poor decision did not have a negative observable effect how would it be a poor decision...?
Criminally charging politicians for making decisions with negative observable effects dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong
You would discourage politicians from doing anything (and probably discourage people from going into politics) if they will be criminally liable for the results of their policies. You would also be doing nothing to fix whatever went wrong >

You could have a poor decision that doesn't make anyone a victim you could raise taxes to 99% or abolish taxation entirely both of which would be poor decisions but wouldn't be violating anyone's rights
What is wrong in this case is the taxpayers are footing the bill for public officials extra legal actions and those same public officials aren't being held accountable criminally because of a mix of political influence prosecutor discretion and standards of evidence >

Abolishing taxation would end the government and end society as we know it. How would that not be a poor decision?
OP on this sub you HAVE to respond to my arguments: Criminally charging politicians for making decisions with negative observable effects dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong
Failing to do so is violation of rule B >

I literally said it would be a poor decision did you not read my comment? It's a poor decision it just doesn't violate anyone's rights that's the point I never said we should criminalize poor decisions
Really the argument that i was intending for wasn't about politicians or policy makers but more about the conduct of actual public servants like teachers or cops but if you want me to respond to an argument that I wasn't arguing in the first place fine
A lack of accountability for public officials who blatantly violate people's rights is what is wrong and that is what this seeks to fix so saying that it does nothing to actually fix whatever is wrong is incorrect because what is wrong is the taxpayer footing the bill in million dollar lawsuits while the cause of those lawsuits gets to walk away scot-free >


OP on this sub you HAVE to respond to my arguments:   
Criminally charging politicians for making decisions with negative observable effects dissuades them from making any decision at all, and does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong  
Failing to do so is violation of rule B >

I responded to the argument that it does nothing to actually fix whatever was wrong you also said that I said something I didn't when you said abolishing taxation isn't a bad public policy when I never said that I said it was a bad public policy it just doesn't give anyone standing to sue because their rights have been violated >

Who are you talking about?
The mayor, governour, president who sign a law? The sponsors of a bill? The co-signers? Everyone who votes for it? The people in the relevant agency who carry out a policy?
All those people should be responsible if someone wins a case? What kind of case? You're not clear here at all --

But if they violated the law which cost the government that much money why not just charge them with that crime?  
The reason for this is because of Rules of Evidence and that in a criminal case you need to prove that someone has done something Beyond A Reasonable Doubt which is different from the standard of a civil case that would cost the government the amount of money in the first place which in turn leads to prosecutors just exercising there discretion to not charge government employees because they want to maintain a good working relationship with those agencies however if the mere active provoking the civil case in the first place is illegal it would be much easier to charge them and much more difficult for a prosecutor to argue that they don't think they could prove they did something wrong

I don't know what you're trying to say here at all. Are you saying prosecutors don't bring cases against legislators for (still not sure, see above) because they don't want them getting mad?
Or.... I have no clue, the bolded isn't really English and prosecutors don't bring civil cases.
Can you clarify who you want to charge and with what, in what instances? >

I gave an example of police brutality or teachers molesting children but it could be basically anything that provokes a successful lawsuit
If the governor of the state or legislature signs a law that says kill all people with red hair and then several people with red hair are killed then later on it's ruled unconstitutional and the victims families Sue I don't want the taxpayers to have to foot the bill without the people who enacted a policy that violates their rights being punished
Really I was originally thinking of it as more of a thing about the actual enforcement of laws or the conduct of public officials then the policy making itself but I suppose you could interpret it to be more broad like we just have >


If the governor of the state or legislature signs a law that says kill all people with red hair and then several people with red hair are killed then later on it's ruled unconstitutional and the victims families Sue I don't want the taxpayers to have to foot the bill without the people who enacted a policy that violates their rights being punished

Again, who do you want to foot that bill? The gov? The legislature? The author? The cosponsors? The voters who elected idiots?
Also... you seem not to understand the scope of lawsuits against the government. There are ENDLESS ones. You say in another comment if the legislation ends with lawsuits against the gov't. That's going to cover pretty much everyrhing. >

Yes of course you could sue anyone for any reason but it has to be an actually successful lawsuit
Also even out of successful lawsuits it has to be a case where the only remedy is financial compensation (for instance to use an example of the lawsuit that legalized gay marriage the government lost but the remedy wasn't paying out money to gay people who wanted to get married the remedy was simply declaring any law that prevented gay marriage to be unconstitutional)
Also like another commentary pointed out 95% of cases end in settlements so I don't think it would be as endless as you think it would be >


Also even out of successful lawsuits it has to be a case where the only remedy is financial compensation (for instance to use an example of the lawsuit that legalized gay marriage the government lost but the remedy wasn't paying out money to gay people who wanted to get married the remedy was simply declaring any law that prevented gay marriage to be unconstitutional)

That's a federal case challenging legislation, and there are absolute tons of suits seeking damages over banning same-sex marriage. 

Also like another commentary pointed out 95% of cases end in settlements so I don't think it would be as endless as you think it would be

But you're proposing the defendants in these cases be some manner of individual legislators or law enforcement or court clerks or etc. Those people aren't going to settle a hundred civil suits. They don't have the $$. >

Have there been any successful cases seeking damages over Banning same-sex marriage? I'm not saying a lawsuit is enough to charge them it specifically has to be a successful lawsuit that wasn't settled which removes over 95% of all lawsuits
The civil suit isn't against them the civil suit is against the public I'm saying that if the public loses a civil suit that it didn't settle it should have the authority to charge a public employee that did such conduct that resulted in the suit with a crime equivalent to destruction of property or illegal use of public funds or something else >


Have there been any successful cases seeking damages over Banning same-sex marriage? I'm not saying a lawsuit is enough to charge them it specifically has to be a successful lawsuit that wasn't settled which removes over 95% of all lawsuits

Why are you excepting suits that settle? 
Who is paying for the suits that settle??

I'm saying that if the public loses a civil suit that it didn't settle it should have the authority to charge a public employee that did such conduct that resulted in the suit with a crime equivalent to destruction of property or illegal use of public funds or something else

What if it DID settle?? Who pays? Again. You're suggesting legislators, officials, law enforcement, clerks, whatever, you won't clarify, should pay. WHO pays? 
Also, see Us v. Windsor. >

Because in suits that settle you can't really claim it's entirely their fault because the settlement was a agreement that was made without their consent meaning it was not a court ordered payment to be made but rather a public agreement for a payment to be made
The taxpayer should always pay I never said the taxpayer shouldn't pay I'm saying that if the taxpayer pays as a consequence of a lawsuit the public loses the public should charge whoever cost the taxpayer such a ridiculous amount of money >


Because in suits that settle you can't really claim it's entirely their fault because the settlement was a agreement that was made without their consent meaning it was not a court ordered payment to be made but rather a public agreement for a payment to be made

... someone is going to pay. If you settle and the gov'r is paying damages and your court costs, what is the difference in terms of what you're suggesting than if it was ordered without a settlement? 

The taxpayer should always pay I never said the taxpayer shouldn't pay I'm saying that if the taxpayer pays as a consequence of a lawsuit the public loses the public should charge whoever cost the taxpayer such a ridiculous amount of money

But then the taxpayer ISN'T paying. >

I meant charge as in charge with a crime not charge as in charge an amount of money or credit card >

Can you give a real life example? Because I’m struggling to think of any situation where the causality would be so undeniably clear that you’d have enough evidence to convict the policymaker/official >

Police brutality teachers molesting children basically anything that provokes a massive lawsuit that the taxpayers have to pay the bill for >

Okay, please identify which public officials would be identified as having enacted or executed policies that would have caused them to be charged related to police brutality and/or teachers molesting kids. >

The police officers and teachers themselves because they themselves enacted a policy or conduct of illegal brutality or child molestation?
You know teachers and cops are public officials right