Topic: Should police be required to have liability insurance? (Read 2610 times)
Perhaps if cops get full military training they will learn what soldiers do so well, i.e. kill each other through "friendly" fire. But maybe that will happen more when they get into more serious skirmishes/battles with the citizenry which seems inevitable. Good luck, g
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.
Because a doctor usually tries to help people and only if something goes wrong, this is called malpractice
Now the pigs usually try to get people in trouble, (either by locking them up, stealing their money or injuring or killing them), and it is an absolute exception that they actually help someone. They are the opposite of doctors. No insurance in the world would cover that.
Also no insurance would insure a person who is willing to accept money for getting others in trouble. A person who is ready to hurt someone else just because the "law" allows it, might also hurt someone else if the law is not looking.
I do realize that some people deserve the trouble the cops get them into, but 90% or more of cop activity is about victimless crimes, where no one is "violated" except a rule
there must be liability insurance for the police then only they will stop harassing civilians and as they dont target the criminals they just harasse normal personal who is not at all involved in criminal activities and who is going to pay for their life losses?? So there should be a liability insurance for police.
If state officials who carry weapons (in this case police) have to pay for insurance every time they use their weapons (whether rightly or wrongly, that it would decide a judge) i'm sure those weapons would be used much less.
This is Fantastic!!! Ofcourse there should be liability insurance for cops so that they can perform their duty more responsibly without causing any damage to civilians. If this insurance is applicable then they perform their duties sensibly and will not take law for granted.
Dude that wouldn't work, humans inevitably make mistakes. And you can't compare police officers to doctors. Doctors' work is orderly, there is method and every case has a very clear path to a resolution, if procedures are not respected or the doctor is negligent then he should definitely pay for it. There is no order as such in police work, they have to prepare for the unexpected. There are just too many factors involved, especially when lives are being threatened to be able to say with certainty that the cop is to blame.
And yet courts award settlements all the time based on police officers' bad actions. Those are the instances this is referring to, not instances where cops act justifiably in a violent situation. The situations where they shoot an unarmed civilian, or abuse a suspect, or doctor evidence, or any other instance in which governments have paid out settlements for the bad actions of cops.
Yes but courts are far from perfect, that they award settlements does not necessarily mean they are right in doing it. What I'm saying is that unless you can map out the law enforcer's psyche in its entirety (which would then mean he/she has absolutely no reason to behave in any other way than the recommended/prescribed way), it is impossible to grasp the subtleties of a situation where lives are at stake because reflexes and instinct (which override protocol) usually kick in at some point.
Dude that wouldn't work, humans inevitably make mistakes. And you can't compare police officers to doctors. Doctors' work is orderly, there is method and every case has a very clear path to a resolution, if procedures are not respected or the doctor is negligent then he should definitely pay for it. There is no order as such in police work, they have to prepare for the unexpected. There are just too many factors involved, especially when lives are being threatened to be able to say with certainty that the cop is to blame.
And yet courts award settlements all the time based on police officers' bad actions. Those are the instances this is referring to, not instances where cops act justifiably in a violent situation. The situations where they shoot an unarmed civilian, or abuse a suspect, or doctor evidence, or any other instance in which governments have paid out settlements for the bad actions of cops.
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.
Obviously cops don't do anything voluntarily, which is why the point is it's not voluntary. They fight civilian oversight, they fight accountability, they fight pension reform, they fight body cameras; I would expect them to continue to fight anything, including something that would make them economically responsible for their actions. But there's no reason to think that these changes which would be forced on them would be borne by taxpayers who are forcing them to accept the changes through a change in the law.
Police chiefs are not elected officials, they are hired by mayors, city councils & city managers. Sheriffs are elected officials, but their replacement can be appointed/anointed by a retiring sheriff, whether or not their retirement date coincides with an election or not. The incumbent is rarely unseated without term limits.
All you are right. I put wrong one in. Yes Sheriff is elected. Been a while since really voting on that one here. I know where I live it pretty much ends up same person each vote.
Every time I watch the news I see some lunatics from the U.S. congress demanding war, violence and destruction. This after nutjobs that somebody voted for have ruined country after country around the world in endless war scams. And on the news I see on a regular basis nutcase police hired and supervised by some nutjobs that somebody voted into office. This is what I see, the retards that vote for all this psychojunk and the violence it brings see it quite differently I´m sure.
And when you fight their demands, then they do something like this... from http://www.inquisitr.com/2021165/jade-helm-walmart-conspiracy-biggest-plumbing-job-in-history-or-something-far-more-sinister/:
Quote
Walmart closures in Texas, California, Florida, and Oklahoma have sparked mounting concerns over Operation Jade Helm. Five Walmart stores will close abruptly for the next six months. Shocked Walmart workers who have found themselves suddenly out of a job were told that “plumbing problems” are the cause of the immediate closures.
Employees impacted by the Walmart closures were given just a few hours notice about the six-month shutdown. Approximately 2,200 employees will now be without a paycheck during the “extended repairs.”
As previously reported by the Inquisitr, Operation Jade Helm involves 1,200 special forces team members being dropped into seven southwestern states as a part of realistic military training exercises. The domestic special ops training has become highly controversial. The special ops soldiers, some of the most elite fighting men in the world, will be ordered to “operate undetected” among the American civilian population
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2021165/jade-helm-walmart-conspiracy-biggest-plumbing-job-in-history-or-something-far-more-sinister/#dhQKfUJiQVSJZTBD.99.
Employees impacted by the Walmart closures were given just a few hours notice about the six-month shutdown. Approximately 2,200 employees will now be without a paycheck during the “extended repairs.”
As previously reported by the Inquisitr, Operation Jade Helm involves 1,200 special forces team members being dropped into seven southwestern states as a part of realistic military training exercises. The domestic special ops training has become highly controversial. The special ops soldiers, some of the most elite fighting men in the world, will be ordered to “operate undetected” among the American civilian population
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2021165/jade-helm-walmart-conspiracy-biggest-plumbing-job-in-history-or-something-far-more-sinister/#dhQKfUJiQVSJZTBD.99.
Google "walmart jade helm."
Read more and see pictures at http://www.inquisitr.com/2021165/jade-helm-walmart-conspiracy-biggest-plumbing-job-in-history-or-something-far-more-sinister/
EDIT: More pictures at http://allnewspipeline.com/What_Martial_Law_Will_Look_Like.php.
Police chiefs are not elected officials, they are hired by mayors, city councils & city managers. Sheriffs are elected officials, but their replacement can be appointed/anointed by a retiring sheriff, whether or not their retirement date coincides with an election or not. The incumbent is rarely unseated without term limits.
Dude that wouldn't work, humans inevitably make mistakes. And you can't compare police officers to doctors. Doctors' work is orderly, there is method and every case has a very clear path to a resolution, if procedures are not respected or the doctor is negligent then he should definitely pay for it. There is no order as such in police work, they have to prepare for the unexpected. There are just too many factors involved, especially when lives are being threatened to be able to say with certainty that the cop is to blame.
Every time I watch the news I see some lunatics from the U.S. congress demanding war, violence and destruction. This after nutjobs that somebody voted for have ruined country after country around the world in endless war scams. And on the news I see on a regular basis nutcase police hired and supervised by some nutjobs that somebody voted into office. This is what I see, the retards that vote for all this psychojunk and the violence it brings see it quite differently I´m sure.
I don´t know; if you have homicidal maniacs working for you could it be that something is wrong with YOU? All those nutters from the U.S. congress to city hall - with all their murderous crap in tow - were elected I guess.
That is kinda a blanket statement with no real facts. I don't think you can say everyone "rom the U.S. congress to city hall - with all their murderous crap in tow". There might be a few bad apples in the bunch but by far I don't think of all government as having "murderess crap".
As far as police we talked about normally the Chief is voted on. From there he can hire his squad for lack of better term.
I don´t know; if you have homicidal maniacs working for you could it be that something is wrong with YOU? All those nutters from the U.S. congress to city hall - with all their murderous crap in tow - were elected I guess.
Have police retirement funds pay legal settlements for police brutality. That should improve their behavior fairly quickly.
Another pension scheme that will screw taxpayers in the end.
And where exactly do you think those settlements have been coming from ? Taxpayers maybe ? These people get their salaries from taxpayers I guess.
In most cases it comes from the city. So since the city get's money from taxes ... in a way yes taxpayers pay it.
You would never be able to get it to come out of retirement funds.
The only place insurance doesn't belong is in healthcare. Hell yes, police should have liability insurance. And they need to change the judicial process for felony cases against cops. Obvious conflict of interest by having DAs that work hand-in-hand with cops conduct the Grand Jury.
Yes. No matter what scheme the government sets up to make gullible taxpayers think they will no longer be paying for civil rights violations, the taxpayers will always be made to pay in the end anyway.
Have police retirement funds pay legal settlements for police brutality. That should improve their behavior fairly quickly.
Another pension scheme that will screw taxpayers in the end.
And where exactly do you think those settlements have been coming from ? Taxpayers maybe ? These people get their salaries from taxpayers I guess.
Have police retirement funds pay legal settlements for police brutality. That should improve their behavior fairly quickly.
Another pension scheme that will screw taxpayers in the end.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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
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 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..
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
....
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.
Jump to: