Most states you can not carry if there is a certain amount alcohol being served. If you asked or told to leave by security or staff and do not you can be arrested for trespassing. If you persist in arguing with the LEO you are public disturbance.
I fail to see what this has to do with Qualified Immunity. I would never ever crawl in a squad car to go protect society from the mob or thugs or even domestic abuse cases if my employer couldn’t assure me I wouldn’t finish my shift being trasportrd to jail for doing what I understood to be what I was paid to do.
Qualified Immunity shouldn’t be an all or nothing proposition. If you are guilty of gross negligence there should be a way to hold you accountable without your entire shift being filled with opportunity for scumbags to own your life.
Btw, the amount of the settlement is horseShit. Entrapment can be made to work both ways. The officers should have been smarter. That shouldn’t have earned her 1m. I hope it doesn’t. But knowing some of the council in OKC I could see two of our own (JoBeth being one) voting for something like this just to further a narrative.
Qualified Immunity shouldn’t be an all or nothing proposition. If you are guilty of gross negligence there should be a way to hold you accountable without your entire shift being filled with opportunity for scumbags to own your life.
Btw, the amount of the settlement is horseShit. Entrapment can be made to work both ways. The officers should have been smarter. That shouldn’t have earned her 1m. I hope it doesn’t. But knowing some of the council in OKC I could see two of our own (JoBeth being one) voting for something like this just to further a narrative.
IF the officers knew they could be held liable for carrying out an unlawful act, chances are that that act wouldn't have happened.
End QI and you'll see more officers thinking harder about their actions. Politicians don't want that - they want orders followed without question, and they've seen to it that the officers are shielded from retribution. The politicians inflict this nonsense and then the taxpayers foot the bill.
Reforming perhaps - but good luck recruiting if ended altogether. They seem to be prosecuting abuse, sometimes with over-the-too results even, despite QI. How many professions put employees in daily split-second decision scenarios where lives are involved and frivolous lawsuits would undoubtedly result, hamstringing its function? The most predictable outcome would be the pullback of policing altogether, and in situations and communities that need it most. And in recruiting at a time when they are having problems filling ranks in hostile Blue cities. Policies of departments, like no-knock, are the biggest bang-for-the-buck of reforming abuse imo.
It's almost like doctors would be susceptible to the same thing, isn't it? If only there was a solution. Maybe some kind of insurance that would protect the officer from such things.
To an extent, officers are "insured". The cities are responsible for paying the settlement if an officer was negligent. So really, the only difference is one employer has someone underwriting their malpractice policy where the other self-insures. Really comparing apples to oranges here. There is no way officers could afford to pay such a policy premium on their own, you'd have to pay officers comparable to a Dr. OCPD has 12 recruits in the current academy class. Based on previous academies drop out rates, you'll see 6-9 probably make it to phase 4. And out of that, 4-7 will probably make it to the streets. Retention averages between 30-60 percent throughout the training process. Thats with a $64k salary and a 10k bonus. Previous academies had 50-60 at a pay rate in the 40's. Toss in the added expense of insurance, and even less of a desire to deal with the crap they do, which is what's driving the applicant pool down, and you wont get any applicants. Most departments pay half of what Oklahoma City does. Full time deputies are under $40k.
This is kinda off topic but an armed security guard or P.I. has to have a surety bond through CLEET and its some kind of insurance and even though I have one, Im still not really quite sure what it is or why its required. Do police officers have to be bonded? Is this the same thing as the insurance ya'll are talking about?
I'm talking about malpractice insurance that medical providers have to carry.
Put the cost on the carriers and the offenders, not the general taxpayers.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/boise-man-filming-police-arrested-175723399.html
Another suit. Guy was dangerously documenting police actions. Glad the officer had a body cam on to validate the arrest.
Another suit. Guy was dangerously documenting police actions. Glad the officer had a body cam on to validate the arrest.
I get that, and most of my response was directed to that. An officer could not afford the premium, and the cities could not afford to pay them what they would need to for them to cover those premiums. Cities cannot get qualified applicants at the current pay scale. Either way, taxpayers are paying the premium, whether the city pays the settlement, or the officer pays the premium, since his salary is paid by the taxpayers. It just passes hands one more time before its paid out. I get ending qualified immunity, but just rewrite the law to read like Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws, if justified, you cant be held civilly liable. For example, the officer who came home to the wrong apt and shot the tenant thinking he had broke into hers. Why should qualified immunity apply when she's off duty? How did it relate to her job? The cop always being on duty thing was determined by the Supreme Court to not be true/applicable, so QI shouldnt always apply either.
Last edited:
Similar threads
