Comments on: Civilian Oversight Of Coppers Still Missing

By: blaskowitz

blaskowitz — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:15:46 +0000

The issue is NOT (generally speaking) contacts with citizens of a city. The issue USUALLY involves behavior that falls in to the OTHER category that needs to be addressed. The behind the walls sort of activities that the public only hears rumor of.The citizens rarely know for sure what is going on and without an ombudsman that knows his job, knows what is important and what is not and is honorable, we NEVER know. Drug abuse, domestic violence, sexual impropriety, pedophilia, statutory rape, alcohol abuse, DUI’s, theft, perjury, nepotism, abuse of authority, mental issues that might be an issue with an individual with a loaded gun and arrest powers are issues most departments have to deal with in some fashion, but how do we know when these become an issue for the average citizen. Having said that, unless the job of ombudsman is more specifically defined and given some teeth, the average citizen lives in a world of hit or miss with some officers of the law. At this point, the position is meaningless.

By: sal nez

sal nez — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:43:08 +0000

No contradicting, what I am saying is, cities and other places cover their employees, why should the person that are in high visibility jobs that have everyday contact with people, and are possibly going to be sued by just about anyone for anything, be required to pay for there own insurance. Rick, not even going to start with you, we will just get shut down, and its like talking to a wall at times.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:29:48 +0000

lol.. kinda contradicting yourself sal…

By: Sal Nez

Sal Nez — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 23:39:25 +0000

In todays world anyone can sue anyone, just depends if you have the money to start a suit, or a lawyer to take the case. Yes, I understand basic civics, I understand that municipities, counties and states have liability insurance to cover their employees that do something wrong. Normally, those persons are removed from emloyment by either resigning or termination if their misconduct rose to the level of a serious policy violation or a criminal offense, you as John Q Public just don’t hear about them, because there are laws in place for that also, but thanks for trying to teach us something!

By: John Q. Public

John Q. Public — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:10:20 +0000

Uhm… Civics 101: Everyone an Officer interacts with (no less arrests) has the Right (vis-a-vis “Privilege”) to sue that Officer in their State District Court and/or Federal Court.

The City of Boise (and by extension: You) have already paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawsuits brought against Officers, the Department and the City as a result of unprofessional and criminal conduct of Boise Police Officers.

The City ALREADY carries liability insurance (along with the Fire Department, Parking Enforcement Agencies, and yes; even the Dog Catchers). All my proposal would do is make the Officers responsible for premium increases based on suits brought in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, and judged by a Jury of their Peers.

Not much different than a company driver who gets speeding tickets. S.O.P. is tat said driver would pay the difference between the base rate and the increase caused by their behavior.

Eventually, a drivers record gets so bad that they either can’t afford the premiums, or the insurer says they’ll no longer cover them.

Its the Private Sector/Capitalism at its finest.

What do YOU do for a living, that you don’t have even a rudimentary knowledge of Civics or Liability Insurance?

By: Sal Nez

Sal Nez — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 03:22:44 +0000

Gee ok John, so your saying everyone an officer arrests could sue him. Yeah that makes sense! What do you do for a living? Guess if police should have it, so should fire dept, parking enforcement, dog catchers, the kid that mows your lawn. Get real!

By: John Q. Public

John Q. Public — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:04:52 +0000

If officers were to carry their own professional liability insurance, insurance rates would increase for each misconduct case brought against an officer. That handful of officers who continue to abuse their power in uniform would be forced out, as their insurance rates would become too costly for them to remain in the department or they became uninsurable. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, general contractors and many others are required to pay for professional liability insurance– why not police officers?

By: blaskowitz

blaskowitz — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 05:29:37 +0000

It’s called a subpoena. But you need an honest truth seeking individual in the Ombudsman position in the first place……preferably one that sticks around long enough to explain a few things before heading to the coast. Whoops…….too late.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:02:04 +0000

This just seems to be a catch 22 situation. We need the ombudsman to investigate because we can’t trust the cops to hold their own accountable…is that correct? But the ombudsman cant investigate possible illegal actions of the cops til there is no jeopardy attached.. Somehow it seems this is worse than the bad old days. If I am understanding this right the top cops can find it to be a personnel/training problem and then the ombudsman gets the truth but the errant cop is free and clear. Sounds like a waste of a couple hundred grand or more to run the office.
There seems to be an easy fix… since the cops are supposed to “lead” lets put some folks in charge that will hold them to at least the same standard they expect from the public or give the ombudsman some teeth to discipline or suggest charges be filed.
In light of the atrocities LE has perpetrated around the country this is a conversation that is going to have to happen. Thankfully none have happened in Boise… for a few years anyway, but it is only a matter of time.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:26:14 +0000

It sounds as though you are correct. If the guy was shooting then their is no question, and that “if” is NOT a suggestion that he wasn’t. One thing that does concern me is the ombudsman cannot investigate until any chance of a criminal charge being leveled. It sounds like the cops contract that says they have to tell the truth to the ombudsman is a bit of a work around in the system. They should be able to take the 5th with him just like they can with a judge, but wait taking the 5th or not talking to the cops confirms guilt… doesn’t it. That last part is sarcasm…kinda

EDITOR NOTE–The policy is a double edge sword. As a condition of employment they give up their 5th rights in order to get at the truth. The thinking is there is “no risk” in telling the truth if it cannot be used against you. Otherwise, coppers could just ignore the ombudsman and we would be back to the bad old days.