Connect with us

Published

on

Notwithstanding his dalliance with criminal justice reform and his castigation of law enforcement officials he says have abused their powers to target him, Donald Trump has always been inclined to “back the blue” against critics of police policies and practices. That instinct goes back decades, and it has served him well in his current incarnation as a populist politician catering to the anxieties and resentments of Americans who worry that policing has been undermined and compromised by the demands of left-wing agitators. But the latest manifestation of this themeTrump’s campaign promise to “indemnify” police officers who supposedly are paralyzed by fear of civil liability for doing their jobsis so detached from reality that it belongs in the same category as his insistence that he actually won reelection in 2020.

“We will restore law and order in our communities,” Trump said during a campaign rally in New Hampshire last Saturday. “I am also going to indemnify our police officers. This is a big thing, and it’s a brand new thing, and I think it’s so important. I’m going to indemnify, through the federal government, all police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong actions against crime.”

The problem, Trump claimed at a rally in Iowa a few days earlier, is that police are “afraid to do anything. They’re forced to avoid any conflict. They are forced to let a lot of bad people do what they want to do, because they’re under threat of losing their pension, losing their house, losing their families.” To address that problem, he said, “we are going to indemnify them against any and all liability.”

Although Trump seems to think indemnification of police officers who are sued for alleged misconduct is “a brand new thing,” it has been long been routine practice. In a 2014 study of civil rights cases that covered “forty-four of the largest law enforcement agencies across the country,” UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that “police officers are virtually always indemnified.” That means they are not personally responsible for settlement payments or jury-awarded damages arising from allegations of police abuse. From 2006 to 2011, Schwartz reported in the New York University Law Review, “governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement.”

During that period, Schwartz calculated, “officers financially contributed to settlements and judgments in just .41% of the approximately 9225 civil rights damages actions resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, and their contributions amounted to just .02% of the over $730 million spent by cities, counties, and states in these cases.” She noted that “officers did not pay a dime of the over $3.9 million awarded in punitive damages,” and “governments satisfied settlements and judgments in full even when officers were disciplined or terminated by the department or criminally prosecuted for their conduct.”

What about legal fees? “Although my public records requests did not seek information about who bears the cost of defense counsel,” Schwartz wrote, “several government employees and plaintiffs’ attorneys noted in their responses that officers are almost always represented by the city’s or county’s attorneys, or by attorneys hired by union representatives.”

Given this situation, Trump’s proposal makes no sense. “The idea that officers need indemnification is frankly absurd,” Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law professor Alexander Reinert toldThe New York Times, because “they already have it.”

To reiterate, Schwartz found that cops were not actually on the hook for damages or settlements in civil rights cases even when their employers decided that their conduct warranted discipline or dismissal. They were not on the hook even when prosecutors decided that their conduct warranted criminal charges. Yet Trump claims that cops “avoid any conflict” and are “afraid to do anyhing” because they worry that frivolous lawsuits will ruin them financially.

In reality, even meritorious lawsuits often do not get far enough that the defendants need the indemnification they would virtually always receive. Under 42 USC 1983, victims of police abuse theoretically can seek damages for violations of their constitutional rights. But thanks to qualified immunity, a restriction that the Supreme Court grafted onto that statute, such lawsuits cannot proceed unless they allege conduct that violated “clearly established” law. In practice, that means plaintiffs must locate precedents with closely similar facts, a requirement that can block lawsuits when police behave in ways that even Donald Trump might consider beyond the pale.

Suppose a cop responds to an erroneous report of domestic abuse by assaulting the woman he ostensibly came to help, lifting her off the ground in a bear hug and throwing her to the ground, thereby breaking her collarbone and knocking her unconscious, because she disobeyed his command to “get back here.” Suppose police wreck a woman’s home with tear gas grenades after she gives them permission to enter so they can arrest her former boyfriend, who it turns out is not actually there. Suppose police, after chasing a suspect into an innocent family’s yard, shoot a 10-year-old boy while trying to kill his dog. Suppose police steal cash and property worth more than $225,000 while executing a search warrant. Suppose police kill a suicidal, gasoline-soaked man by lighting him on fire with a Taser.

As you can see if you follow those links, these are not theoretical examples. These are actual cases where federal appeals courts decided that qualified immunity barred the would-be plaintiffs from even trying to make the case that they deserved compensation under Section 1983.

In ananalysisof 252 excessive-force cases decided by federal appeals courts from 2015 through 2019, Reutersfoundthat most of the lawsuits were blocked by qualified immunity. It also found that the share of cases decided in favor of police had risen from 44 percent in 200507 to 57 percent in 201719.

As 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett observed in 2018, “qualified immunity smacks of unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behaviorno matter how palpably unreasonableas long as they were thefirst to behave badly.” Worse, “important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered.”

Five years later, the barriers to compensation for victims of police abuse remain daunting. “The American legal system regularly leaves constitutional wrongs unrighted,” Willett noted this month. “Many worthy 1983 claims go unfiled, and those that are filed must navigate a thicket of immunity doctrines that shield government wrongdoing, thus turning valid claims into vanquished ones.”

According to Trump, by contrast, it is so easy to sue police officers and so easy to recover damages that the prospect prevents them from doing their jobs because it threatens them with financial ruin. None of that is true.

Continue Reading

UK

Russian captain of ship in North Sea crash charged with gross negligence manslaughter

Published

on

By

Russian captain of ship in North Sea crash charged with gross negligence manslaughter

The Russian captain of the Solong container ship involved in the North Sea crash has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter.

Vladimir Motin, 59, of Primorsky, St Petersburg, has been remanded in police custody and is due to appear at Hull Magistrates Court on Saturday, Humberside Police said.

On Monday morning, about 13 miles off the coast of East Yorkshire, the Solong sailed into the US-registered oil tanker Stena Immaculate, which was carrying jet fuel for the US Navy.

One member of the Solong crew is presumed dead. He has been named by the Crown Prosecution Service as 38-year-old Filipino national Mark Angelo Pernia.

Smoke billows from the MV Solong cargo ship in the North Sea, off the Yorkshire coast, Tuesday, March 11, 2025, England. (Dan Kitwood/Pool Photo via AP)
Image:
The MV Solong cargo ship following Monday’s North Sea crash. Pic: AP

Five Russians had been on board the Solong, Russian state agency TASS quoted the Russian embassy in London as saying, Reuters reported.

In the immediate aftermath of the collision, dozens of people were forced to abandon the vessels as they caught fire.

The coastguard rescued 36 crew members after the alarm was raised at 9.48am on Monday.

More from UK

The Stena Immaculate, operated by US firm Crowley, was stationary and at anchor while waiting for a berth to become available at the Port of Killingholme, on the River Humber, when it was struck by the smaller Solong, causing huge fires and explosions – the smoke from which was visible from space.

The Solong had been sailing from Grangemouth in Scotland to Rotterdam in the Netherlands at the time.

It was initially feared it was carrying sodium cyanide but the German owner Ernst Russ said four containers on the vessel had previously been carrying the chemical.

Salvage companies boarded the two vessels on Thursday and were carrying out initial damage assessments. Small fires were still being reported on the Solong’s top deck, the coastguard said.

The US oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate following the collision. Pic: PA
Image:
The US oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate after the collision. Pic: PA

Police said extensive lines of inquiry were continuing but it was taking time given the vessels were still at sea and there were a large number of witnesses.

Frank Ferguson, from the CPS, said: “We have authorised Humberside Police to charge a Russian national in relation to a collision involving two vessels in the North Sea off the east coast of England.

“The Portuguese-registered cargo ship, the Solong, collided with the American-registered oil tanker, the Stena Immaculate, just before 10am on Monday, 10 March 2025.

“Filipino national Mark Angelo Pernia, 38, died.

“Vladimir Motin, 59, from St Petersburg, Russia, who was the vessel’s captain, is due to be charged with one count of gross negligence manslaughter.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Technology

Buy now, pay later lender Klarna files for U.S. IPO

Published

on

By

Buy now, pay later lender Klarna files for U.S. IPO

Pedestrians walk by an advertisement for Klarna.

Daniel Harvey Gonzalez | In Pictures via Getty Images

Klarna, a provider of buy now, pay later loans filed its IPO prospectus on Friday, and plans to go public on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol KLAR.

Klarna, headquartered in Sweden, hasn’t yet disclosed the number of shares to be offered or the expected price range.

The decision to go public in the U.S. deals a significant blow to European stock exchanges, which have struggled to retain homegrown tech firms. Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski had hinted for years that a U.S. listing was more likely, citing better visibility and regulatory advantages.

Klarna is continuing to rebuild after a dramatic downturn. Once a pandemic-era darling valued at $46 billion in a SoftBank-led funding round, Klarna saw its valuation slashed by 85% in 2022, plummeting to $6.7 billion in its most recent primary fundraising. However, analysts now estimate the company’s valuation in the $15 billion range, bolstered by its return to profitability in 2023.

Revenue last year increased 24% to $2.8 billion. The company’s operating loss was $121 million for the year, and adjusted operating profit was $181 million, swinging from a loss of $49 million a year earlier.

Founded in 2005, Klarna is best known for its buy now, pay later model, a service that allows consumers to split purchases into installments. The company competes with Affirm, which went public in 2021, and Afterpay, which Block acquired for $29 billion in early 2022. Klarna’s major shareholders include venture firms Sequoia Capital and Atomico, as well as SoftBank’s Vision Fund.

Continue Reading

Politics

UK authorizes charges against NCA officer for alleged Bitcoin theft

Published

on

By

UK authorizes charges against NCA officer for alleged Bitcoin theft

UK authorizes charges against NCA officer for alleged Bitcoin theft

The agency responsible for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales announced that a National Crime Agency (NCA) officer was due to be charged with the alleged theft of Bitcoin worth roughly $75,000 in 2017.

In a March 14 notice, the Crown Prosecution Service said it had authorized the Merseyside Police to charge NCA officer Paul Chowles with 15 offenses related to the alleged Bitcoin (BTC) theft “during an investigation into online organized crime.” Authorities said Chowles could face one count of theft, 11 charges for concealing, disguising, or converting criminal property and three counts for acquiring, using or possessing criminal property.

The 50 Bitcoin, worth roughly $75,000 before the December 2017 bull run, was valued at more than $4.2 million at the time of publication at a BTC price of $84,541. The NCA officer is expected to appear at the Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on April 25.

Related: British man sues council for $647M over lost Bitcoin in landfill

In April 2024, amendments to the UK’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act authorized NCA officers and local police to seize crypto from suspected criminals without arresting them. The Crown Prosecution Service did not mention how Chowles allegedly stole the Bitcoin or whether the funds were connected to illicit activities.

Crypto policies across the pond

The NCA said in December 2024 that it had seized roughly $26 million in cash and crypto and arrested 84 people as part of a global campaign to fight money laundering and organized crime. Some of the crypto addresses targeted by UK authorities at the time “showed regular exposure to Garantex.” The founder of the Russian crypto exchange was arrested in India in March and is expected to be extradited to the US to face criminal charges. 

The UK government is expected to move forward on creating a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets in 2025 following the Labour government’s election victory. The country remains a significant market for crypto users, with Coinbase securing approval to operate from the financial regulatory body in February.

Magazine: Crypto fans are obsessed with longevity and biohacking: Here’s why

Continue Reading

Trending