Should police be required to have liability insurance?

[jaysabi]

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.

[redsn0w]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1022645.0
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016851.0
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013592.0
....

[notlist3d]

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..

[criptix]

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]

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.

[jaysabi]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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]

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?

[notlist3d]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

[jaysabi]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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

[jaysabi]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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.

[BADecker]

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

https://www.suretybonds.com/officers-law.html

[Sithara007]

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?

[BADecker]

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?

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.)

[BADecker]

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?

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.

[erikalui]

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.