Just one month into the year, the city already has run through well over half of the $82 million that Mayor Brandon Johnson set aside for 2025 to cover police misconduct settlements and judgments. And more than 220 lawsuits are still pending for just three ex-cops.
I think you missed the part of my post where I communicated the city/department would pay the base premium for the officers. So good cops would pay nothing. Only bad cops that got higher rates from judgments against them would have to fork out the overage in premiums to continue practicing law enforcement.
Why would good cops see the line item growing? It would be a static value to the city/department. Only the bad cops would see growing premiums as it relates to judgments against that particular bad cop. Those growing premiums would be paid by the individual bad cop.
Again, I think you missed this in my prior posts. I addressed this too. If you allow for the float based upon the history of no insurance, its going to bias against insurance at all. Doing what you’re proposing would immediately put good cops and bad cops on the same side against the idea of insurance. I’m not saying its impossible to shove a solution down the throat of someone that wants it, but its much much harder, and sometimes impossible with a particular political climate, especially the one we’re in right now. In short, entrenched interests will fight a solution. Fort the best chance of adoption, you want as many entities on the side of your solution. What your proposing does the opposite of that.
You’re skipping the messy transition. We don’t get that luxury. What you’re proposing would mean we likely never get the chance to put the solution in place.
Again, I’ve spoken about it already in prior post here: entrenched political interests would push back on it because you’re unnecessarily giving them the ammo to do so. This is the third time I’ve had to reference my prior posts to answer your current ones.
I’m not sure if we just have different levels of engagement on this topic or there is another issue. Regardless, I feel I’m made my position clear. You’re welcome to disagree, I’ll let my prior posts continue to speak to my position instead of repeating myself again. Thanks for discussing this up to now! Have a great day!
I think you missed the part of my post where I communicated the city/department would pay the base premium for the officers. So good cops would pay nothing. Only bad cops that got higher rates from judgments against them would have to fork out the overage in premiums to continue practicing law enforcement.
I actually do not like that idea. I think its good for all of them to see the line item and be concerned about it growing.
Why would good cops see the line item growing? It would be a static value to the city/department. Only the bad cops would see growing premiums as it relates to judgments against that particular bad cop. Those growing premiums would be paid by the individual bad cop.
no its just like a house in a flood prone area. if you department and city has a lot of claims yours will be higher than the mayberry cop.
Again, I think you missed this in my prior posts. I addressed this too. If you allow for the float based upon the history of no insurance, its going to bias against insurance at all. Doing what you’re proposing would immediately put good cops and bad cops on the same side against the idea of insurance. I’m not saying its impossible to shove a solution down the throat of someone that wants it, but its much much harder, and sometimes impossible with a particular political climate, especially the one we’re in right now. In short, entrenched interests will fight a solution. Fort the best chance of adoption, you want as many entities on the side of your solution. What your proposing does the opposite of that.
Its easy enough to reduce the cost. Its just like any other insurance. Keep corruption and bad behavior for enough years and the cost will go down.
You’re skipping the messy transition. We don’t get that luxury. What you’re proposing would mean we likely never get the chance to put the solution in place.
I don’t see what makes the tranistion messy. No more messy than when anyone buys their first house or car or whatever.
Again, I’ve spoken about it already in prior post here: entrenched political interests would push back on it because you’re unnecessarily giving them the ammo to do so. This is the third time I’ve had to reference my prior posts to answer your current ones.
I’m not sure if we just have different levels of engagement on this topic or there is another issue. Regardless, I feel I’m made my position clear. You’re welcome to disagree, I’ll let my prior posts continue to speak to my position instead of repeating myself again. Thanks for discussing this up to now! Have a great day!