Proposed Minneapolis ballot item would require police to carry insurance

While scouring the web, I came across this article. At first, I thought it was funny but after some contemplation, I think it's a good idea. Some opinion is the police won't do anything, thus avoiding any misconduct. My personal take on this is police will still do their jobs, they have to or there is no purpose for the person in the position.

After years of reading about police with multiple misconduct charges, I think this is a good idea for those departments who can't seem to control their officers. And they don't seem to be losing their employment either. But, every time a cop looks cross-eyed at the wrong person, will misconduct charges be filed? I'd like to see what others think about this idea.

A measure that would require police officers to carry professional liability insurance could be on Minneapolis ballots in November’s general election.

***SNIP***

The “Police Insurance Amendment” would allow the city to pay the base rate for officers’ insurance coverage, but premium increases triggered by cases of officer misconduct would be covered by the officers involved in those incidents. That’s a change from current practice, under which the city is self-insured and determines if it will cover police misconduct settlements on an individual basis.

The shift would give officers a direct financial incentive to stay in line, proponents say, and cut the settlements paid out by the city in cases of officer misconduct. Between 2012 and September 2015, Minneapolis spent $6.6 million on settlements. The police union’s president, meanwhile, warns that such a policy would prompt officers to interact less with the public, for fear of financial repercussions.

“This common-sense approach works much like car insurance,” Dave Bicking, the Committee for Professional Policing’s campaign chairman said in a statement. “Just like bad drivers, officers who engage in misconduct will see their premiums increase and those who don’t improve may eventually be priced out or become uninsurable.”

***SNIP***

Meanwhile, state law requires cities to “defend and indemnify any of its officers and employees,” so long as those employees were carrying out their official duties and “not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith.” And if the amendment were approved, changes to insurance would have to be negotiated, said Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the police union. Kroll said requiring insurance would have an unintended impact on officers’ behavior: “They’re not going to get out of their cars for anything.”


www.startribune.com...

From the article, it appears this has been discussed for years and the city now believes it has all it's P's & Q's in order. Time will tell.

This idea popped into my head awhile ago when I was watching some show where a crappy doctor's malpractice insurance skyrocketed. Protects the taxpayers, protects the cops, protects the people that are being protected.

I think I did a thread on it here (maybe somewhere else) and it was met with a fair amount of skepticism, but some very good points.

We all want cops held accountable, no one wants to be footing the bill for routine offenders, and I think it would be an easier way to get rid of problem cops than the normal ways if they simply couldn't afford it anymore. Thanks for the thread OP.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Good idea, as so many just kill random children. It would leave some suport behind for their own family when they go to prison.

a reply to: reldra

Good idea, as so many just kill random children.

I don't like cops, but that statement is the definition of hyperbole. Did you even think about that statement before you typed that in? You are just went off the rails.

And the insurance idea is crap. These aren't doctors and you can always just get the garden variety settlement with the city which already has insurance.

We need less laws and less people forced to by insurance by Government.

a reply to: reldra

What? Seriously what happened to Reldra? I don't know if you didn't read the thing, if you couldn't understand it, or if you are just impulse posting but something is off about you and has been for awhile.

Insurance really ?...

How about just simple criminal accountability ...sheesh is that too much to ask that law enforcement at the very least be held up to the standard they enforce .....are we living in the twilight zone ?

Seems to me as another cop out for a failing system ....

I'm thinking the city is tired of paying for stupid actions by their police people. It's obvious that IA and higher ups aren't very effective. This could be a contagious situation. It would put the police behaviors on notice, that's for sure. It always seems effective to hit someone where it hurts...their wallet.

At the same time, hmmmm......, would I be a worse or better driver if I didn't have insurance and very little personal liability if I made a mistake?

Insurance is a scam to bleed money away from the people and into the pockets of the banks.

Cops are the boots on the ground to enforce the ridiculous rules set in place by the banks.

The legal system is the connection between cops and government.


Give the cops insurance at the cost of the tax payer, the legal system will ensure that payouts are rarely ever made- but the banks will ensure that the cost of insurance keeps going up. The cops will keep on doing what they do best- keep the citizens under their boot.
The taxpayers are good for unlimited bills, right?


The whole thing is ludicrous.

SPAM REMOVED BY ADMIN

a reply to: lordcomac

Maybe you missed the point. Insurance is currently at the cost of the taxpayer. The city policy will transfer the cost over and above basic insurance provided by the city to the individual police person. Where quite frankly, I believe it would have more impact.

SPAM REMOVED BY ADMIN