The most potent advocate to reduce proposed liability claims in the call to insist that officers carry personal insurance is for local govt employers to be responsible for the EXTRA recompense lawsuits.
They’ll weed out any officer accused of an explicit display of misconduct, especially if there could be the propensity of a repeat occurance.
The most detrimental effect to deter bad behavior are legitimate liability payments that deplete a city’s finances and the exorbitant additional recompensation insurance coverage.
Citizen outrage that their taxes must be redelegated for those purposes are also powerful incentives to reduce responsibility for an officer’s wrongful behavior by subsequent dismissal.
Many metropolitan areas are self insured through their budgets. Small tons and counties have bought insurance as well. Actions of police officers that fall under 1983 or state civil right laws violations are defended by the municipality or the state.
I commented on the “extra” liability insurance that is now being proposed for officers to carry.
It would be an onerous burden for local govts and taxpayers, on top of the premiums already paid.
It would certainly inspire a locality to be rid of a problem officer in order to prevent another tragedy or abusive violation.
That “burden” isn’t going to change based on your police force.
It takes only a split second for an officer to make one bad decision that leads to a violation of civil rights.
Any active officer is going to get multiple complaints filed against them whether those complaints have any basis in fact or not.
With liabilities being what they are currently there is no city, state, or federal agency that would not be wise to get rid of any bad officers they have even without this additional burden.
Nobody that legitimately acts in self defense or defense of others should ever face criminal or civil liability. They should have the same exact “qualified immunity” that LEO’s have.
