[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [Announce] And the FOP's response to Norbits'suspension

[Melodye Rosales]

As I will continue to stress---Steve Carter is the ultimate power.  He makes
the administrative decisions.  He hired Finney and can also not renew his
contract.  If Norbits was found to have used the wrong methods per
policy---then Finney surely didn't instruct him to do differently.

I am getting ready to post that point online as soon as I finish another
deadline.

What I can say is that it is really insulting that the city continues to
cherry pick what laws apply to whom, what, where and when.  I mean---didn't
all of the reports state Finney never told Norbits anything?  You mean
Norbits had a moment to "hand signal" or "verbally tell" Reynolds (depending
whose interview/version you are reading) to go to the southwest side of the
house---and whatever moment/second that took----Reynolds understood and
proceeded to do so.  You mean the Chief----couldn't find some way to
indicate to Norbits what to do and what not to do?  You mean---even if the
kid escaped---like---you really think they couldn't find him?  Like----where
was he gonna go?  How far could he get?  How many places would there have
been to hide?  This is Champaign for God's sake.

So if Norbits didn't do something---his supervisor (Finney) should be held
accountable----and Finney's supervisor (Carter) should be held accountable
for not citing Finney-----




On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>wrote:

>  Obviously the Carrington's lawyer should also be considering the
> culpability of Norbits' supervisors AND whoever actually employs police
> officers and their supervisors -- the City of Champaign?? Seems there's
> plenty of guilt to go around. Has anybody had an update on this lately??
>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Sun, 4/25/10, Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Announce] And the FOP's response to
> Norbits'suspension
> To: "Peace-discuss List" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "C-U Citzens
> for Peace and Justice" <discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org>
> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 8:38 AM
>
> > There's a legal doctrine in civil law - I can't recall its Latin name at
> the moment - that makes the employer
> > liable for acts of its employees - even arguably negligent acts - if the
> employee is acting within the regular
> > scope of his/her employment.
>
> *r <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior>espondeat superior<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior>
> * – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate
>
> Vicarious liability in private litigation. There is vicarious liability in
> criminal litigation too.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<http://mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100425/97703c3c/attachment-0001.html>