Yeah, so respondeat superior covers negligence—criminal acts are generally considered outside the scope of any employment. So the second thing you picked up on is astute—a negligent hiring argument. Let’s change the facts a little bit, if you hired an armed security guard, and then the same facts occur, if it were…

Or, perhaps the conclusion isn’t absurd? I would argue that there’s something wrong with these officers. I mean, that’s the conceptual problem with agency liability in general right? Why should one actor be held liable for the actions of another actor? The idea is that it’s rooted in the control and authority actor A…

What I mean is that you’re focusing on the relationship between the officer and the alleged victim, when the focus is on the relationship between the officer and the employer, it doesn’t matter what was in the mind of the alleged victim. But regardless of all that, the legal standard to hold a municipality liable for…

The answer to your next question is, no, no that’s not what it means. You’re talking about respondeat superior (and conversely frolic and detour), and it’s used to impose employer liability all time. It’s different when you’re suing a municipality. Municipalities are immune from liability for the actions of their…