3 ms·

I've always felt that people working in law enforcement related fields should be required to carry their own liability insurance. Just like if you're in an at-f

I've always felt that people working in law enforcement related fields should be required to carry their own liability insurance. Just like if you're in an at-fault accident your rates go up, the same should happen for law enforcement. If you're a repeat offender the rates go up sufficiently that it will no longer make financial sense for you to remain in the job.

ALittleLight 4y ago
That kind of insurance is there to cover accidents. A doctor's malpractice insurance would be irrelevant if the doctor had been taking cash from people's wallets - that's not malpractice, it's just theft. Similarly, if you lie to trick a judge into letting you "legally" take money, that's fraud, theft, and armed robbery - not any kind of malpractice. This article says that the FBI agents and US Attorney incorrectly accused a safe deposit company of being a criminal enterprise (case was later dropped, nobody convicted, no real evidence). The FBI then lied to a judge, disregarded their warrant they obtained under false pretenses, and stole money and valuable from hundreds of people, almost all of whom were entirely related to the crimes the FBI was ostensibly investigating. The problem here is not a lack of insurance, it's that the FBI is brazenly acting like a criminal gang and none of the people who perpetrated the crimes will face consequences.
- abeyer 4y ago
  > incorrectly accused a safe deposit company of being a criminal enterprise (case was later dropped, nobody convicted, no real evidence). That's not quite correct, I think: the company itself plead guilty to the money laundering part and was fined... but it was also unable to pay the fine, and the government chose not to go after the owners/officers personally. So the individual charges were dropped, but not against the company. That seems like even more of an indication that this was primarily/just a fundraising via forfeiture expedition. Civil forfeiture laws need to be changed to require a criminal conviction first, and to impose mandatory multipliers of damages on the government when a forfeiture is found improper, or there is no motivation for law enforcement to stop padding their own budgets this way.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? You've got enough evidence to seize their money, just not enough to prove they committed a crime in court. The company, which has already gone out of business, pleads guilty giving up their right to appeal, which wouldn't help them because they are already out of business, and agrees to a fine, which they can't pay anyway. I think it's much more likely the company plead out to get the legal case over with. That nobody was convicted of a crime over this is why I wrote the FBI incorrectly accused the company. If the FBI was right, and these were money launderers - where are the criminal charges? The FBI and US attorneys are well and widely known for over charging and coercing people to take pleas - so the guilty plea with no consequences doesn't really carry any weight. What's the evidence?
    - abeyer 4y ago
      > The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? Ethically, morally, by common sense? Sure, weird. But it's also civil forfeiture law as it currently exists basically working "as intended." The whole goal is to end-run the criminal court and move things into civil court where they have a lower burden of proof and the accused have to pay for their own defense (or technically that of their property.)
tehwebguy 4y ago
This is even more politically impossible than the correct solution (which is for DAs et al to actually charge police when they commit crimes) since it would require legislation that police will not support.
- erichocean 4y ago
  > which is for DAs et al to actually charge police when they commit crimes Won't happen, DAs and the police are on the same team. It'd be like suing…yourself.
  - greedo 4y ago
    Won't happen, Judges, DAs and the police are on the same team. It'd be like suing...yourself. An amazingly high percentage of judges are former prosecutors. The last stats I read had it at around 66%. The remainder were primarily criminal defense attorneys in their previous life.

ALittleLight 4y ago

That kind of insurance is there to cover accidents. A doctor's malpractice insurance would be irrelevant if the doctor had been taking cash from people's wallets - that's not malpractice, it's just theft. Similarly, if you lie to trick a judge into letting you "legally" take money, that's fraud, theft, and armed robbery - not any kind of malpractice. This article says that the FBI agents and US Attorney incorrectly accused a safe deposit company of being a criminal enterprise (case was later dropped, nobody convicted, no real evidence). The FBI then lied to a judge, disregarded their warrant they obtained under false pretenses, and stole money and valuable from hundreds of people, almost all of whom were entirely related to the crimes the FBI was ostensibly investigating. The problem here is not a lack of insurance, it's that the FBI is brazenly acting like a criminal gang and none of the people who perpetrated the crimes will face consequences.

abeyer 4y ago
> incorrectly accused a safe deposit company of being a criminal enterprise (case was later dropped, nobody convicted, no real evidence). That's not quite correct, I think: the company itself plead guilty to the money laundering part and was fined... but it was also unable to pay the fine, and the government chose not to go after the owners/officers personally. So the individual charges were dropped, but not against the company. That seems like even more of an indication that this was primarily/just a fundraising via forfeiture expedition. Civil forfeiture laws need to be changed to require a criminal conviction first, and to impose mandatory multipliers of damages on the government when a forfeiture is found improper, or there is no motivation for law enforcement to stop padding their own budgets this way.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? You've got enough evidence to seize their money, just not enough to prove they committed a crime in court. The company, which has already gone out of business, pleads guilty giving up their right to appeal, which wouldn't help them because they are already out of business, and agrees to a fine, which they can't pay anyway. I think it's much more likely the company plead out to get the legal case over with. That nobody was convicted of a crime over this is why I wrote the FBI incorrectly accused the company. If the FBI was right, and these were money launderers - where are the criminal charges? The FBI and US attorneys are well and widely known for over charging and coercing people to take pleas - so the guilty plea with no consequences doesn't really carry any weight. What's the evidence?
  - abeyer 4y ago
    > The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? Ethically, morally, by common sense? Sure, weird. But it's also civil forfeiture law as it currently exists basically working "as intended." The whole goal is to end-run the criminal court and move things into civil court where they have a lower burden of proof and the accused have to pay for their own defense (or technically that of their property.)

tehwebguy 4y ago

This is even more politically impossible than the correct solution (which is for DAs et al to actually charge police when they commit crimes) since it would require legislation that police will not support.

erichocean 4y ago
> which is for DAs et al to actually charge police when they commit crimes Won't happen, DAs and the police are on the same team. It'd be like suing…yourself.
- greedo 4y ago
  Won't happen, Judges, DAs and the police are on the same team. It'd be like suing...yourself. An amazingly high percentage of judges are former prosecutors. The last stats I read had it at around 66%. The remainder were primarily criminal defense attorneys in their previous life.