Should police be required to have liability insurance?

[BADecker]

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.

[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?

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.

[erikalui]

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.

[jaysabi]

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.

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.

[jaysabi]

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 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.

[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.

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

[jaysabi]

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.

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.

[TheButterZone]

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.

[panju1]

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.

[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.

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.

[galdur]

Have police retirement funds pay legal settlements for police brutality. That should improve their behavior fairly quickly.

[TheButterZone]

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.

[galdur]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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.

[grendel25]

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.

[notlist3d]

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.   

[galdur]

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.

[notlist3d]

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.

[galdur]

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.

[ObscureBean]

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.