Bitcoin Forum

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.

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?

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..

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?

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.

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.

Wolves do not eat themselves when there are sheep aplenty.


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.

No, you saying "never" is highly inaccurate, when I did not say "never" or any synonym thereof. Fucks sake, man, READ.

They do. Police are bonded, which is a type of insurance. It's called a Surety Bond.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

And, back to square one:


* 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.