.The Annoyed Man wrote:This frosts my butt for the following reasons:mojo84 wrote:The Law Enforcement Liability insurance carrier pays for such claims which lessens the sting to the city and bad cop. The taxpayers will end up footing the bill for the deductible and higher insurance premiums.jmra wrote:$185,000 settlement. Mixed feelings here. Wish this was being paid by the ex trooper instead of our tax money.
First of all, the bad cop should get no breaks. A bad cop should feel the full sting. LEOs are held to a higher standard because they carry great responsibility, and that is how it should be. But that standard means nothing if they have a reduced penalty for violating it. If the penalty is less than you or I would face for the same kind of infraction, then it means that they are actually held to a LOWER standard than you or I. That would be wrong. The department didn't rape those two women in such a disgusting fashion; that cop did it. She did it in violation of departmental standards. She should bear the full weight of the financial damages.
Secondly, who pays for the insurance premium.....the taxpayers, or some other mysterious entity? When enough of these incidences happen, who pays the premium increase.....the taxpayers, or some other mysterious entity? The fact is, our tax money ends up paying for this kind of misbehavior, even if we try to hide that fact by saying the insurance carrier pays it. If officers involved didn't engage in criminal behavior, taxpayers wouldn't need to even pay for this liability insurance. I can understand LE liability for things like vehicular accidents where the officer involved bears some liability for an accident, but RAPE is not accidental. RAPISTS shouldn't get special consideration to protect their careers, and they should be prosecuted and punished as RAPISTS, not as someone who was merely overzealous. And if there are financial damages assessed, the RAPIST should pay 100% of it. The insurance payout shouldn't even be considered, so that the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for bad behavior.
The ONLY give I can see in this is whatever liability a department incurs by making a bad hire. But the fact remains that the department didn't force the cop to commit a criminal act. She did that all by her onesies.
I with you TAM. Not only for the financial burden on the public , but especially that so many times felonious acts by LEO's are reduced to official oppression, a misdemeanor. I am pro LEO so don't get me wrong. Just that we should all be treated equally, PERIOD!
