Should police be required to have liability insurance? - page 3.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1344

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2015, 05:45:01 PM

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.

Yes of course, this should be made mandatory while joining the police force. And the prmium should be deducted from his/her salary. If he/she doesn't do any wrong then the whole amount should go to that officer after retirement.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1031

RIP Mommy

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2015, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on April 12, 2015, 08:56:15 PM

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.

Quote from: notlist3d on April 12, 2015, 09:50:48 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2015, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on April 12, 2015, 08:56:15 PM

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.

notlist3d

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2015, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on April 12, 2015, 08:56:15 PM

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.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: TheButterZone on April 12, 2015, 08:56:15 PM

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?

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1031

RIP Mommy

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.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: notlist3d on April 12, 2015, 06:14:31 PM

If you have trouble getting some to even use body cameras do you really think you will be able to get them to buy insurance for them?

I think rather then insurance, cameras will be what is a game changer. I think eventually most if not all will be forced to use body cameras. And also these day's you can get dashcams for your own car..

Yes, body cameras will cut down on police behaving badly, but it does not alleviate the risk to taxpayers when they make "mistakes," either accidental or cases of unjustified uses of deadly force. The taxpayer is still on the hook when there is a settlement. And of course cops wouldn't do this voluntarily, they're getting a free ride right now in terms of risk. They make a mistake, someone else (taxpayers) pay the costs of that mistake. We are essentially already underwriting insurance on their actions, the point would be to legislatively make it a requirement for cops to have liability insurance to cover their actions on the job, the same way doctors or lawyers have to have malpractice insurance. The same way you have to have liability insurance to drive. It puts the responsibility for the risk created on the people who create it, instead of the taxpayers.

Cops won't do anything voluntarily to increase oversight, accountability, or to take responsibility for their actions. Also, we don't have to let it be up to them.

notlist3d

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: criptix on April 12, 2015, 06:15:43 PM

Quote from: notlist3d on April 12, 2015, 06:14:31 PM

If you have trouble getting some to even use body cameras do you really think you will be able to get them to buy insurance for them?

I think rather then insurance, cameras will be what is a game changer. I think eventually most if not all will be forced to use body cameras. And also these day's you can get dashcams for your own car..

i dont get it, what are the points that speak against a body camera?

I speak against them. Sorry if it came out wrong. I just am saying it seems hard to get a lot of police to wear body cameras. If we cannot get them to wear body cameras, I don't think there is a chance we could get them to get a new forum of insurance.

criptix

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1145

Quote from: notlist3d on April 12, 2015, 06:14:31 PM

If you have trouble getting some to even use body cameras do you really think you will be able to get them to buy insurance for them?

I think rather then insurance, cameras will be what is a game changer. I think eventually most if not all will be forced to use body cameras. And also these day's you can get dashcams for your own car..

i dont get it, what are the points that speak against a body camera?

i mean there is no disadvantage i can think of atleast...

/edit

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/6955826-Wash-chief-weighs-pros-and-cons-of-body-cameras/ (march 2014)

i understood what you mean, but i though you could tell me which cons exist against body cams on police officers.
from the link i posted it seems like technical and legal reasons hm

notlist3d

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

If you have trouble getting some to even use body cameras do you really think you will be able to get them to buy insurance for them?

I think rather then insurance, cameras will be what is a game changer. I think eventually most if not all will be forced to use body cameras. And also these day's you can get dashcams for your own car..

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1042

#Free market

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2015, 05:45:01 PM

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 is a really nice idea, but who knows maybe someone will start to prove an insurance 'against' the cops. The mentality is changed in these years, who is supposed to be paid for protect the citizen is who murder 'you'. Not all the cops act in this way, but the majority as you can see here :

- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cop-accidently-shoots-and-kills-man-1022645
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cop-shoots-man-in-the-back-1016851
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/another-cop-video-1013592
....

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

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.

Topic: Should police be required to have liability insurance? - page 3. (Read 2586 times)