how should police officers be insured against their misconduct?

TChris (Talk Left) wrote about the phenomenon of St. Paul demanding the Republican Party insure the city against expenses related to police misconduct.

This is an interesting policy question: Should cities be allowed to insure themselves against claims of police brutality? The City of St. Paul agreed to host the Republican National Convention on the condition that Republican Party arranged "to buy insurance covering up to $10 million in damages and unlimited legal costs for law enforcement officials accused of brutality, violating civil rights and other misconduct." Private donations were used to purchase the insurance. (link in original goes to AP article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune)

TChris takes the position that taxpayers will do a better job holding municipalities accountable than insurance companies.

This is a pretty good example of someone having ideological blinders. Insurance companies will hold municipalities accountable by either dropping them as customers or raising their insurance premiums.

I don't understand why you'd think voters would hold elected officials accountable for money paid directly for settlements but not money paid indirectly to insurance companies.

Here's what I like about insuring police officers against police misconduct. I like that the municipalities can (if they choose) write it into the contracts that the individual police officers are responsible for a share of their insurance. Police officers that have more problems would have higher premiums. Higher premiums would provide a financial incentive for bad cops to get out of police work.

After seeing the ineffectiveness of the Cook County State's Attorney in holding violent, lying, messed-up-in-the-head cops accountable, I'm willing to let the free market have a role in holding bad cops accountable too.

cutting in line results in cops putting beat down on minister

Last week a man waited in line to attend the Congressional hearings in which Gen. David "Bush's Mouthpiece" Petraeus made the case for the U.S. military continuing to occupy Iraq. The Capitol Police decided that the man should be excluded from the hearing.

The Capitol Police officer claimed the man cut in line. The man, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, a former U.S. Air Force officer, claims he was excluded after the officer read his button that says, "I love the people of Iraq".

In the video of the incident, there is no reference to anyone complaining about Yearwood cutting in line. I would have expected that the police officer would say something like, "These people behind you have complained that you cut in front of them in line."

Anyway, a relatively minor issue ended-up resulting in an arrest and the Capitol Police injuring Yearwood.

With all our great media companies--New York Times, Washington Post, etc--it seems the best journalism on the incident is by Air Force Times (Seamus O’Connor).

But don't take my word for the incident. You can see the video yourself.

Watching the video a second time, I'm pretty sure the person behind Yearwood in line is Aaron Hughes, the the president of the Chicago chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War. It seems natural that Yearwood would be next to Hughes in line, especially considering the next video (h/t Siun (Fire Dog Lake)).

My general take is that war makes everybody tense. This is especially true of wars that drag on past the point where everybody knows we're sacrificing lives just to procrastinate the elites admitting the were wrong to start the war.

This tension has the ability to make a minor issue--how often does cutting in line at the Capitol result in arrest or injury?--into something bigger. This is the same basic problem--normal people operating under tense conditions caused by war--that resulted in Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder being killed by their government on May 4, 1970 at Kent State University.

[UPDATE: According to Yearwood, he and Ann Wright, Col, US Army (ret), were deliberately blackballed by Capitol Police. The officer gave tickets to people in line, but deliberately withheld tickets from Wright and Yearwood.]

Latino couple sues Rosemont over Taser in used during dubious arrest

Jose Blancas and Maria Martinez were arrested in Rosemont. See Chicago Tribune (Liam Ford).

Stephens and the other officers saw Blancas outside the apartment building and followed him inside, said Neil Toppel, the couple's lawyer. The lawsuit does not state what provoked a confrontation, but Toppel said police used a stun gun on Blancas and Martinez before arresting them.

So Blancas was already inside his aparment building when the confrontation with the police began.

Both Blancas and Martinez were charged with resisting a police officer. Blancas also was charged with public intoxication and Martinez with battery, according to the suit.

So, the only reason the police had for instigating contact with Blancas was that he was intoxicated. If you're drunk and made it home, shouldn't the police leave you alone at that point? The threat of public drunkenness has passed, right?

Someone may want to inform the Rosemont PD that in the United States we are governed by the U.S. Constitution. And even of Alberto Gonzales considers the protections of the Constitution quaint, it's the law of the land.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe some of our law enforcement officials, like the Cook County State's Attorney or U.S. Attorney Northern Illinois District, will do the right thing and prosecute the cops involved in this case.