Topic: Should police be required to have liability insurance? - page 2. (Read 2586 times)
Have police retirement funds pay legal settlements for police brutality. That should improve their behavior fairly quickly.
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally*, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
Obviously, if you're enacting a law to require cops to foot the bill for their own insurance risks, the intent is to take the liability off of taxpayers, so I don't buy your conclusion.The cops won't quietly acquiesce to this new law, which effectively reduces their salary. They would obviously expect a pay revision to incorporate this new "cost". Most probably, a group insurance plan, would make sense economically. In the end, the taxpayers would foot the bill.
The only way it would happen if a raise paid it or being a benefit, or even city picking up the tab. There is no way you would get a cop or most any profession to take a paycut to get a new insurance.
In the end someone else will be picking up the tab. And it would be one heck of a fight to get officers to get this new insurance. I'm sure it would not be easy and be a huge political mess.
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally*, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
Obviously, if you're enacting a law to require cops to foot the bill for their own insurance risks, the intent is to take the liability off of taxpayers, so I don't buy your conclusion.The cops won't quietly acquiesce to this new law, which effectively reduces their salary. They would obviously expect a pay revision to incorporate this new "cost". Most probably, a group insurance plan, would make sense economically. In the end, the taxpayers would foot the bill.
Lawmakers' intent in passing such a law would be to make gullible taxpayers _think_ they're no longer liable, so that anyone following the money of status quo ante and post will be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Government never fixes the "problems" (features, not bugs, to them) it creates.
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
The insurance I proposed has nothing to do with what cops feel and how they react due to whether or not they feel insured everything to do not forcing tax payers to pay a financial penalty when cops brutalize someone. Cops would be paying for that expense themselves now since the insurance premiums for police brutality would be paid exclusively by cops. Your last response has me wondering if we are even discussing the same thing. Perhaps we haven't been and I didn't realize it.
And, back to square one:
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally*, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
* as in pay his/her own premiums
Obviously, if you're enacting a law to require cops to foot the bill for their own insurance risks, the intent is to take the liability off of taxpayers, so I don't buy your conclusion.
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
The insurance I proposed has nothing to do with what cops feel and how they react due to whether or not they feel insured everything to do not forcing tax payers to pay a financial penalty when cops brutalize someone. Cops would be paying for that expense themselves now since the insurance premiums for police brutality would be paid exclusively by cops. Your last response has me wondering if we are even discussing the same thing. Perhaps we haven't been and I didn't realize it.
And, back to square one:
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally*, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
* as in pay his/her own premiums
They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
Oh really...that's new for me. This should be there for all the countries and should also include Army as well. What do you say people?
It is not required for police. Any insurance company may offer to sell you a surety bond for an individual officer, however why any cop would buy one is beyond me because they are agents of the local government, and are indemnified by governmental immunity. If they act poorly, the government (i.e. taxpayers) are on the hook for paying for lawsuits.
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
The insurance I proposed has nothing to do with what cops feel and how they react due to whether or not they feel insured everything to do not forcing tax payers to pay a financial penalty when cops brutalize someone. Cops would be paying for that expense themselves now since the insurance premiums for police brutality would be paid exclusively by cops. Your last response has me wondering if we are even discussing the same thing. Perhaps we haven't been and I didn't realize it.
Take the time to study Karl Lentz to find out how to sue the man behind the uniform, and his bond, so that you get the bond, and so that he loses his job because he is no longer bondable.
EDIT: In many cases the city insures its cops simply by taxing the residents of the city.
I don't think about what you mean by Karl Lentz. I live in India where the police usually take law in their own hands and to get them suspended as well is tough. It is 1% of the cases they are sued and 99% they don't get sued. If there is an insurance wherein they need to compensate for the loss of the innocent, this percentage can increase else it's almost impossible to control their immoral behavior.
They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
Oh really...that's new for me. This should be there for all the countries and should also include Army as well. What do you say people?
It's news for most people. If folks in America, Canada and the U.K. knew that their government officials were bonded, and that they should sue the bond for damages, they would get their damages and the offending official would lose his job... because nobody would bond him any longer.
EDIT: There's a right way and a wrong way to go about this. Take the time to study Karl Lentz to see the right way.
Thanks a lot Badeckr for your insights about the topic. It's pretty interesting to read such stuffs.
There are plenty of posts in this forum about police shootings and police brutality, and invariably, a comment about how bad cops murder a citizen, then the tax payers are on the hook for their defense and an eventual settlement. With this in mind, should police be required to carry an insurance policy to cover payouts and lawsuits related to their behavior while on the job? Doctor's are required to carry malpractice insurance, why not cops? Protect the tax payers from bad cops.
It would be great if this insurance is applicable. Currently many cops misuse their rights and punish citizens even though they are innocent. If they are proven guilty, in some cases they are suspended but usually it doesn't happen. This insurance would make them more responsible and they wouldn't take law in their own hands.
Take the time to study Karl Lentz to find out how to sue the man behind the uniform, and his bond, so that you get the bond, and so that he loses his job because he is no longer bondable.
EDIT: In many cases the city insures its cops simply by taxing the residents of the city.
There are plenty of posts in this forum about police shootings and police brutality, and invariably, a comment about how bad cops murder a citizen, then the tax payers are on the hook for their defense and an eventual settlement. With this in mind, should police be required to carry an insurance policy to cover payouts and lawsuits related to their behavior while on the job? Doctor's are required to carry malpractice insurance, why not cops? Protect the tax payers from bad cops.
It would be great if this insurance is applicable. Currently many cops misuse their rights and punish citizens even though they are innocent. If they are proven guilty, in some cases they are suspended but usually it doesn't happen. This insurance would make them more responsible and they wouldn't take law in their own hands.
They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
Oh really...that's new for me. This should be there for all the countries and should also include Army as well. What do you say people?
It's news for most people. If folks in America, Canada and the U.K. knew that their government officials were bonded, and that they should sue the bond for damages, they would get their damages and the offending official would lose his job... because nobody would bond him any longer.
EDIT: There's a right way and a wrong way to go about this. Take the time to study Karl Lentz to see the right way.
They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
Oh really...that's new for me. This should be there for all the countries and should also include Army as well. What do you say people?
The military doesn't need bonding. It has the resources of the U.S. behind it.
As for other countries, sue the crap out of government and its agents whenever they tread on your rights. Soon they will implement some form of insurance.
If you have friends and relatives in prison for some little, petty thing, like smoking a joint, contract with the inmate that he is your property. Then, require government to return your property to you.
In America, Canada and Britain, property is the most important thing that government upholds the rights of the common citizen about. Say it in court. You are being wronged. Government has taken your property and won't return it. Get yourself and the property bonded, so that you are not held liable when they give you your property back.
Once you get your inmate friend back, he/she needs to to sue government to get his/her property back. He has been wronged. They have taken his property, his joint. He needs to sue for the joint returned to him along with damages. Do it the Karl Lentz way. (Study before you attempt this.)
They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
Oh really...that's new for me. This should be there for all the countries and should also include Army as well. What do you say people?
They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
No, you saying "never" is highly inaccurate, when I did not say "never" or any synonym thereof. Fucks sake, man, READ.
So the statement "Of course there is effectively no need for insurance at all, when courts almost always grant government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al ad nauseam" does not connote the meaning that there is no need for insurance? Why would there be no need for insurance if not for a lack of payouts? I only reached the conclusion you lead me to.
No, you saying "never" is highly inaccurate, when I did not say "never" or any synonym thereof. Fucks sake, man, READ.
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
I can't buy into this without your explanation of the reasoning which brought you here. Care to explain?
Wolves do not eat themselves when there are sheep aplenty.
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
I can't buy into this without your explanation of the reasoning which brought you here. Care to explain?
Most likely it would be included in their wadge or as a benefit. It would be very similar to doctors and their insurance I would guess.
I don't see them making officers pay for a insurance and take a paycut.
Insurance premium would be a wage bump or a benefit, and the deductible for legal representation/court costs/fines in case of crimes/civil rights violations committed under color of authority will also be paid by another name, with taxpayer dollars, as always.
Of course there is effectively no need for insurance at all, when courts almost always grant government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al ad nauseam.
You make it sound like there are never settlements related to police brutality/false imprisonment/civil rights violations. That's highly inaccurate.
Jump to: