You must log in or register to comment.

bkornblith t1_j6x4tw5 wrote

This money should 100% come out of police pension money. If they can’t do their jobs… they don’t get to collect a giant pension. Fuck the police.


k1lk1 t1_j6x8ifz wrote

What we should do is get rid of qualified immunity, and require officers to purchase malpractice insurance, the same as many other types of professions.

Certain officers and certain departments will become extremely expensive to insure, or even uninsurable.


PauI_MuadDib t1_j6xbbn9 wrote

This is why I'm supporting NY Senate Bill 182, which proposes to repeal qualified immunity on the state level. If the police unions are fighting so hard against it I know it's gotta be good lol.

SCOTUS won't overturn federal qualified immunity, so it looks like states will have to do what they gotta do at the local level. Colorado & New Mexico did it. It's NYS' chance now.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6y3ji4 wrote

That bill is not going to stop the government from paying.

It actually includes an explicit indemnification clause allowing that.


PauI_MuadDib t1_j6y8aoe wrote

If the law really "does nothing" then I wonder why police unions are spending so much time, money and resources fighting tooth and nail to defeat it? 🤔 I think the lady doth protest too much, and this law will do more than naysayers claim.

It's very similar to Colorado's QI repeal and they had it already help curb misconduct. They found out officers were more likely to intervene or report coworkers for misconduct.

A gov employer will indemnify you if you were within the law or policy. Which I think is a fair compromise. An employer will also be less likely to keep a bad employee that's jacking up their insurance premiums and eating into their budget.

Here's two good resources on myths surrounding repealing qualified immunity.

If it didn't change anything and is a big ole nothing burger then the police unions sure are wasting a lot of money & effort to stop it. I wonder why???


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6ybc93 wrote

You're mistakenly conflating the issues with qualified immunity with the issues with this bill.

This bill having problems doesn't mean that qualified immunity doesn't need revision.

None of the resources you're linking are specific to this bill.

Our legislative in NY is notorious for drafting bills in a half-ass feel good manner, only to discover later that the bill had many flaws.


>A gov employer will indemnify you if you were within the law or policy.

Under the NY bill (I don't know about the Colorado bill), as drafted, that's not true on two counts:

  • The gov is not allowed to indemnify only if the employee is convicted of a crime related to the conduct.
  • The bill prohibits "within the law or policy" as a defense. If the law or policy is determined to be unconstitutional after the fact, the employee is still liable.

PauI_MuadDib t1_j6yscwf wrote

I posted those links because they bring up some of the issues around indemnification. But Colorado's law is the closest to what NY SB 182 is proposing. Except one huge difference is that SB 182 includes law enforcement AND "government officials." But here's some links talking about indemnification, and Colorado's law. It was an issues discussed heavily with their bill too.

The first link is the best one imo. It mentions indemnification and how if an officer is found liable by their gov employer to have violated constitutional rights or policy they won't be fully indemnified. The officer will have to pay a certain percentage. Colorado capped it at 5 percent of the settlement/jury award, not to exceed 25k. The employer will pay part of it, but if law or policy was found to be violated the officer will be personally on the hook for a percentage.

That's why I mentioned it. There are restrictions to being fully indemnified, and that's not unique to Colorado. And the gov employer (police departments in this case) also aren't going to appreciate a hit to their budget or insurance going up.

A cop won't personally be paying a million dollars. But if you're going to risk your employer only paying a percentage of the settlements/award that's still going to be a hit to your wallet. Especially for repeat offenders. 1k here, 3k there, maybe even 5k. That's going to add up and most people don't like losing thousands of dollars. So that might incentivize you to intervene if your coworker is fucking up. And the employer might look at you and say you're eating into the budget, you're making us pay out the wazoo for insurance premiums, I'm having a difficult time justifying why you are worth keeping.

This bill definitely has its limits and won't magically solve every single problem we have. Remember, it can also be changed because right now it's only a proposed bill. This bill could be changed for the better (or the worse lol). That's why it's important to call up our senators and tell them what we do & don't want with SB 182.

It's also limited to state court and deprivation of rights under the state constitution. And we have no idea how judges will end up applying it if and when it's put into action.

It's an albeit small, but good step in the right direction.

I have a feeling the police unions know this, and that's why instead of letting the bill proceed and not waste their breath fighting it, they've teamed up with Hochul to torpedo it. If was really a do-nothing bill then what do they care?


LittleWind_ t1_j6xjct0 wrote

I'm not opposed to having an insurance requirement that limits taxpayer liability when settlements occur. Practically, I don't think it'll play out well, because the industry will charge premiums sufficient to make a profit - which will necessarily mean we're paying more in premiums than we would in settlements.

Everyone on the liability insurance train needs to recognize that the police officers won't pay for it - taxpayers will. In almost every industry that requires malpractice insurance, the cost is paid by the employer.


LostSoulNothing t1_j6xwtvl wrote

How about the city pays the baseline premium (I.e. what would cover a new officer) but if an individual is charged a higher rate (for example because of their disciplinary record or past lawsuits against them) the difference comes out of their pocket? It would both incentivize cops to follow the law and encourage those with the worst track records to quit.


CakeisaDie t1_j6y1832 wrote

It is also a way to actually hold police accountable over multiple jurisdictions without making police talk to each other. I would rather weed out shitty cops via insurance than via deaths.

Ie if you aren't insurable in nyc, you won't get a job in dutchess.

Although there would need to be a balancing game between premiums and payouts to get an insurer on board.

Edit, thought about this alittle more and realized that as tax payers 125m is cheaper. 36,000 police means that the premiums are 3.5k or less, which considering my workers comp 5 per 100, at 65k you end up with a premium of 3.2k and police should get a higher risk profile and earn more than 65k. 125m is cheaper assuming tax payers would fund insurance so the balancing game is a lot harder.


[deleted] t1_j6xb4ol wrote



justpackingheat1 t1_j6zphw8 wrote

But it will at least add incentive for police (and social workers and teachers) to take their jobs more seriously, as they'll be financially on the hook AS WELL


Grass8989 t1_j6xnr9j wrote

If you realistically think the city wouldn’t be paying the bill for “malpractice” insurance and a singular cop making 42k a year will, I have a bridge to sell you.


Sickpup831 t1_j6xin9y wrote

Do we really want this? Think about it. You’re suing, looking for money for damages. Do you want to sue the city worth billions or the individual cop making 45,000 a year? How much money do you think you’re gonna get there?


BillCosbyTesticles t1_j6xsp27 wrote

the money comes from the coffers of whatever insurance company that was dumb enough to insure a cop


Adventurous-Quiet434 t1_j6xv0o6 wrote

They may start out at $45k but after 5 years they are at $85k not including all the benefits like free Metrocard for personal use. If at that tax level you can’t afford liability insurance, you shouldn’t fuck up at your job. I think we should get people here to respond who have been victimized by the pigs in blue and see if they are suing for just for money or for Justice.


stork38 t1_j6y0b1r wrote

You realize if qualified immunity defenses were successful, there'd be LESS money paid out and not more?


numba1cyberwarrior t1_j6zq3fq wrote

Your going to have to increase salaries a lot if that's the case. Insurance is gonna try to jack up rates as much as possible from the get go.


Romas_chicken t1_j79zlfm wrote

Look here’s the thing:

Almost nobody who talks about qualifies immunity knows what qualified immunity actually is, but more to the point, there is one serious difference between the doctor v police example…one is working for the state, the other is (usually) not a government worker and suing a doctor for doesn’t mean you can’t also sue the hospital, in fact that is common.

Qualifies immunity applies to government workers (not just police; teachers, DPW workers, and so forth as well).

They are acting on behalf of the state. This also means the government, which they are acting on behalf of, is who is responsible (and importantly, if the person is acting against the law or policy of the government, then they don’t qualify for said immunity)

For whatever reason this conversation constantly forgets that police departments are very literally a part of the local government. Like how when people get upset about someone getting arrested for something, nobody spends two minutes remembering that the cop doing it isn’t the one making the law or ordinance like on their own.


bangbangthreehunna t1_j6xarom wrote

NYC doesn't even hold criminals accountable, but you want cops to pay out of pocket for insurance? Were 20+years since 9/11 and the cancer funding is still not corrected, but you want cops to find insurance to cover work related issues? Okay.


mrturdferguson t1_j6xqzgm wrote

"One thing is broken, so everything should stay broken."


bangbangthreehunna t1_j6xtrso wrote

How is cops having QI broken?


LostSoulNothing t1_j6xx9au wrote

Because someone who knows they are unlikely to face any consequences for misconduct is more likely to engage in it


bangbangthreehunna t1_j6xy809 wrote

Explain QI to me outside of reddit karma terms.


LostSoulNothing t1_j6y053p wrote

Basically it means that you can't sue a cop for something they did on a job (even if it was illegal and/or violated department rules). You have to sue the department meaning the taxpayers are on the hook for legal fees and any settlement or judgement instead of the individual officer. In theory the city should then discipline and/or prosecute the officer but in reality this rarely happens or is just a slap on the wrist.


bangbangthreehunna t1_j6y0m8k wrote

Article states you cant lose a lawsuit despite not being outside of dept policy. How do we handle that?


wherearemypaaants t1_j7mvwt8 wrote

Chiming in late to correct you a little here: QI actually means that you can’t sue a cop unless you can show they violated a clearly established law.

In practice, that means you have to find an identical (and I really do mean identical) case where the court decided the cops violated someone’s constitutional rights so you can show the court in your case, “see, the cops should have known stealing my rare coin collection while serving an unrelated search warrant was unconstitutional*.”

*a real case that really happened. The cops were granted QI bc apparently it wasn’t clearly established that literal theft is unconstitutional.


phoenixmatrix t1_j6y16hm wrote

>and require officers to purchase malpractice insurance

This IMO is the biggest one. And if they then just go "Ok but we just wont' arrest anyone if its too risky" then fire them, like you would anyone who refuses to do their job.


stork38 t1_j6yxq35 wrote

Can anyone provide a name of these mythical insurance companies that write policies for police officers?


phoenixmatrix t1_j6yy0qe wrote

I doubt there's a mass market for these right now since they don't need them.

But given a big enough dollar amount, you can get an insurance company to write you a policy for almost anything. If I want insurance to handle the case where I would get pregnant (which is biologically impossible for me, born with only male parts and all), someone somewhere will underwrite it for the right price.


stork38 t1_j6zdhc9 wrote

My guy, if they existed they'd be used. Do you think some small town with 6 cops wants to keep lawyers on staff? No, they'd rather pay insurance but such a thing would never exist or even be reasonably priced.


phoenixmatrix t1_j6zjr6d wrote

It wouldn't be cost effective for anyone if the town paid for it, because the person who can cause trouble isn't the one footing the bill. That small town absolutely could find someone to underwrite it, it would just be cost prohibitive. If the cops themselves had to pay for it on their own, it would STILL be cost prohibitive (at first), but they wouldn't have a choice.

I've had to get some insurance for pretty non-standard stuff in the past. You can't just sign up online, and need to talk with an actual human and negotiate, but it can be done. And if the market gets big enough, then it would become "standard" insurance over time.


stork38 t1_j6zn395 wrote

Very reasonable to have cops who make $35k paying $20k for insurance. Great idea!


bangbangthreehunna t1_j6x7jw9 wrote

You can win money against the NYPD without their policy even being broken. It says that in the article. People will settle for a quick 15k.


hau5keeping OP t1_j6xh1j4 wrote

The cops would literally riot if anybody attempted even the mildest of reforms.


Sickpup831 t1_j6xjclv wrote

What does a “mild reform” look like to you? There’s been plenty of reforms. Body cameras, CCRB, public police databases, bans on chokeholds, diaphragm law, new discovery laws, ending stop and frisk.

Not saying the problem is solved but there’s tons of reforms.


casicua t1_j6xptcz wrote

While the progress is good - none of those things address the root cause of personal and professional accountability.

Those policies are important, but they mean very little if at the end of the day violating those policies results in little to no consequences for the offending party and the taxpayers just end up footing the bill. The culture of policing has to be fixed, and ultimately that starts at actually holding them accountable.


Grass8989 t1_j6xke32 wrote

It’s never enough, short of abolishing the police, for these people.


Grass8989 t1_j6xiqwi wrote

Ah, yes I’m sure all of those cops that were there during the riots of 92 will drum up some unrest amongst their ranks.


City_bound t1_j6y23yz wrote

You don’t realize that the city settles cases instead of fighting the reasonable cases where they officers weren’t truly at fault. I won’t change your mind on Reddit but the city will settle cases and pays out that they would easily win in court. Cheers


bangbangthreehunna t1_j6ztraw wrote

Yeah people didnt realize you can be in the right and still lose a lawsuit. Article even say it.


[deleted] t1_j75cw29 wrote

That’s anti cop rhetoric cops are gods and we should be kissing their ass. Responsibilities are only for actual human beings not vermin two legged pig rats.


Oisschez t1_j6x4d7g wrote

Only the most degenerate shitbrains I knew growing up became cops


thebatman924 t1_j6x6lz3 wrote

Ironically the smart person I knew who became a cop left after only 2 years, he said it was like a popularity and a supervisor dick riding contest, but I guess that’s how you get a good detail in the nypd


casicua t1_j6xcyq1 wrote

Where else can you easily get paid to be stupid and basically be a high school bully as an adult?


Speedyx t1_j6x3qgs wrote

I want to be outraged, but it seems the majority of it is from overturned convictions from decades ago. What can you do at this point.


hau5keeping OP t1_j6x6bpx wrote

We could have the police pay for it out of their pensions, but they would literally riot before considering any mild reforms.


Grass8989 t1_j6xkyuz wrote

Stop fearing mongering. Did the cops “riot” when they got body cams, bans on chokeholds, new discovery laws, ending stop and frisk?

You look ridiculous making this claim.

How about someone actually makes a valid argument of the “riots” that occured after these mild reforms instead of downvoting.


chargeorge t1_j70dhnc wrote

I mean it literally happened in the past, its in the link. You also had pretty widespread police violence during the floyd protests (and no, not during the riots, kettling gassing and beating peaceful protesters). You've had repeated work stoppages, you've had police trying to foment a mob against shake shack employees. Hell they called in a huge fucking operation against someone for yelling at them.

Concern over a thing that happened in the past whle the NYPD continues to engage in bullshit is perfectly acceptable.


Grass8989 t1_j70e5xl wrote

I was responding to “the cops will literally riot before considering any minor reform.” Which is completely false.


chargeorge t1_j70efak wrote

Kettling peaceful protestors, gassing and beating them is close enough for me honestly.


WikiSummarizerBot t1_j6x6dd4 wrote

Patrolmen's Benevolent Association Riot

>The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association Riot, also known as the City Hall Riot, was a rally organized and sponsored by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York (PBA) held on September 16, 1992, to protest mayor David Dinkins' proposal to create a civilian agency to investigate police misconduct. Approximately 4,000 NYPD officers took part in a protest that included blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge and jumping over police barricades in an attempt to rush City Hall. Rioters were observed to be openly drinking, damaging cars, and physically attacking journalists from the New York Times on the scene.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


coldbruise t1_j6xnir5 wrote

Let them throw their tantrum again, this time for the whole world to see.


Speedyx t1_j6x7pzl wrote

You do realize any shortfalls in the pension system the city still has to cover, so how is that going to work? And you are bringing up something from 30 years ago where i wouldn't be surprised if half the cops weren't even born yet, considering all the young face cops i always see.


mowotlarx t1_j6x9h07 wrote

These cases aren't all from 30 years ago, what are you even talking about. The most recent case that the DA bungled was from a cop who was doing this between 2011-2015. Over 130 convictions dropped.

Cops still do this.


Speedyx t1_j6xb1of wrote

>“In recent years, district attorneys have moved to vacate many more criminal cases going back dozens of years which have led to an increase in the number of reverse conviction suits and related payouts,” said Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city’s law department. >

Sorry i read the article, i forgot this is reddit you are not supposed to do that.


mowotlarx t1_j6xnocn wrote

"Going back" means there are cases as recent as a few years ago and spanning multiple decades in the past. Speaking of learning about reading comprehension...


Speedyx t1_j6xpli2 wrote

Literally says going back dozens of years. One sentence. You are just making things up now.


mowotlarx t1_j6xsujd wrote

Ok, when you read "going back dozens of years" do you think that means this only involves cases from 20 years ago? Or a time span of cases ranging from 2-5 years ago to others that took place 20 years ago? I don't know why you don't understand how ranges work.

Because, again, top news this week was a cop who was planting evidence and lying on the stand between 2012-2015. That is not 20 years ago. Current cops still engage in this behavior.


Grass8989 t1_j6xtce5 wrote

It explains why this year was particularly higher than previous years.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6y4vco wrote

>The most recent case that the DA bungled was from a cop who was doing this between 2011-2015.

That case was dismissed with prejudice though.

While that outcome is still an injustice to the victims, that cop would still be presumed innocent until trial, and now (post-trial) he should be decidedly innocent.


numba1cyberwarrior t1_j6zqata wrote

Paying out of the pension is illegal and immoral.


Grass8989 t1_j6zx36q wrote

These people are delusional if they think it’s going to be taken out of the pension fund.


hau5keeping OP t1_j6zxjqk wrote

Agreed, the nypd would riot again before accepting any accountability for their violence


Grass8989 t1_j6zy66c wrote

You can’t just take money from a pension plan, that’s not it works. You can fire individual officers and however their individual pension is handled is a different conversation, but you can’t just blanket defund a pension. It’s illegal.


numba1cyberwarrior t1_j6zyeu6 wrote

Dont bother with these people they are insane. You should never have funds taken out of your pension which you worked for.


hau5keeping OP t1_j6zyzka wrote

Honestly its a moot point bc even if it was made legal, the cops would just riot in the face of any accountability for their violence


_Maxolotl t1_j6xd782 wrote

I'd love to see a law that says a cop caught wantonly falsifying evidence faces a mandatory minimum sentence equal to however much time their false evidence put an innocent person away for, with no statute of limitations.


nonlawyer t1_j6xa2j3 wrote

Yeah you could easily view this as good, actually—evidence that wrongful convictions from decades ago are being reviewed, overturned, and the victims compensated (too little, too late perhaps, but better than the alternative).

It certainly isn’t evidence that cops today are more violent or abusive than they were last year.

But that would require reading more than just the headline, I guess.


LostSoulNothing t1_j6xxnf5 wrote

Actually punish cops who perjur themselves, falsify evidence, etc so there are fewer wrongful convictions in the future


mowotlarx t1_j6x95b3 wrote

Take away their pensions. Make them pay. Make current NYPD know if they do this they will be fired and stripped of pension and be made to pay. NYPD are unaccountable for the bad work they do.


Sickpup831 t1_j6xi3to wrote

There’s 36,000 cops in the city. Imagine losing your pension because some dickhead you don’t know in Staten Island did some horrible shit.


mowotlarx t1_j6xnc5e wrote it not clear that the perpetrator would be the one stripped of their pension?


Grass8989 t1_j6xnj18 wrote

OP is fear mongering and assuming people aren’t actually reading the article.

“In recent years, district attorneys have moved to vacate many more criminal cases going back dozens of years which have led to an increase in the number of reverse conviction suits and related payouts,” said Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city’s law department.”

This explains the high payouts this year.

Then claiming the cops are going to “riot” with even the mildest reform, citing something from 30 years ago, when we HAVE had many instances of mild reform in the past decade or so (body cameras, discovery law changes, bans on chokeholds, and the list goes on), and that was not the case.


CivilInspector4 t1_j6zv7cw wrote

>Then claiming the cops are going to “riot” with even the mildest reform, citing something from 30 years ago, when we HAVE had many instances of mild reform in the past decade or so (body cameras, discovery law changes, bans on chokeholds, and the list goes on), and that was not the case.

With the benefit of hindsight it's interesting to see conservatives and law enforcement advocates battle almost every step of reform, yet the results are obviously producing justice for victims of police brutality


4GDTRFB t1_j6x8dfh wrote

Cops are violent gang members.

Prove me wrong


ike_tyson t1_j6xcfxo wrote

What a fucking money pit.

When you have zero accountability why stop??

There's no reason.






DelTeaz t1_j6xsl3k wrote

Dude the MTA pisses away 10x this amount easily. Talk about a money pit


LostSoulNothing t1_j6xy6y9 wrote

That's some nice whataboutism you got there


DelTeaz t1_j6xzetx wrote

I’m making the point that money pit is an exaggeration because it’s relative to other agencies


lafayette0508 t1_j6z3fg9 wrote

ok, so we've established one huge waste of money is bigger than another huge waste of money. Now what?


hjablowme919 t1_j6xsl3h wrote

Civilian Complaint Review Board recommended 145 cops receive some type of disciplinary action. The police will do nothing. They likely pissed all over that report.


ECK-2188 t1_j6xs0ov wrote

They don’t care.

They’ll just find some nonsense subject matter as an excuse for raising our taxes in order to make up the difference.

What a joke.


supermechace t1_j6y9oxn wrote

Im curious if anyone will ever publish an expose of the inner reward system of police forces. Bad behavior is often caused by incentives leadership sets for people to get ahead. I have a theory that somehow arrests are incentivized or a quota exists, but no monitoring whether those arrests are justified


toosinbeymen t1_j6yadxl wrote

$121mm could be put to MUCH better use elsewhere. Can NYC seriously burn $121mm with zero net benefit to taxpayers?


Jimmy_kong253 t1_j6xt9w8 wrote

Definitely take it out of the police pension fund and or the pension payments to the officers who did the wrong doing


drecklia t1_j6ztn0g wrote

The only winners are the lawyers because nothing changes


MLao_ t1_j6zu58k wrote



biggreencat t1_j6y5h8m wrote

now thats progressive


[deleted] t1_j71lzmu wrote

This is also a bit of a misleading headline. DiBlasio pushed corporation counsel and comptroller to settle cases at an unprecedented rate, regardless of the merit. Years past, City would actively defend lawsuits.


CivilInspector4 t1_j71uiod wrote

>This is also a bit of a misleading headline. DiBlasio pushed corporation counsel and comptroller to settle cases at an unprecedented rate, regardless of the merit. Years past, City would actively defend lawsuits.

It's really silly to think this is a big bird issue. The city also paid out more money ten years ago