TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:$185,000 settlement. Mixed feelings here. Wish this was being paid by the ex trooper instead of our tax money.

The Law Enforcement Liability insurance carrier pays for such claims which lessens the sting to the city and bad cop. The taxpayers will end up footing the bill for the deductible and higher insurance premiums.

This frosts my butt for the following reasons:

First of all, the bad cop should get no breaks. A bad cop should feel the full sting. LEOs are held to a higher standard because they carry great responsibility, and that is how it should be. But that standard means nothing if they have a reduced penalty for violating it. If the penalty is less than you or I would face for the same kind of infraction, then it means that they are actually held to a LOWER standard than you or I. That would be wrong. The department didn't rape those two women in such a disgusting fashion; that cop did it. She did it in violation of departmental standards. She should bear the full weight of the financial damages.

Secondly, who pays for the insurance premium.....the taxpayers, or some other mysterious entity? When enough of these incidences happen, who pays the premium increase.....the taxpayers, or some other mysterious entity? The fact is, our tax money ends up paying for this kind of misbehavior, even if we try to hide that fact by saying the insurance carrier pays it. If officers involved didn't engage in criminal behavior, taxpayers wouldn't need to even pay for this liability insurance. I can understand LE liability for things like vehicular accidents where the officer involved bears some liability for an accident, but RAPE is not accidental. RAPISTS shouldn't get special consideration to protect their careers, and they should be prosecuted and punished as RAPISTS, not as someone who was merely overzealous. And if there are financial damages assessed, the RAPIST should pay 100% of it. The insurance payout shouldn't even be considered, so that the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for bad behavior.

The ONLY give I can see in this is whatever liability a department incurs by making a bad hire. But the fact remains that the department didn't force the cop to commit a criminal act. She did that all by her onesies.

Dave2 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

carlson1 wrote:[...]I am 210% LEO.[...]

[...]I am 210 % leo as well[...]

Just to complete the thread drift, you two realize that it's impossible to be more than 100%, right? Because 100% means "out of a maximum possible 'score' of 100, this is rates a <whatever>". But it's important to note that <whatever> can't be higher than 100. It's like the people who say they put in 110% of their effort... well, no, they just weren't giving 100% before, so the increase makes it look like they're giving more than 100% even though they aren't. (I had this same debate with my 5th grade history teacher when I got 105% on a test due to some extra credit; she didn't get it either... Everyone's always dismissive of the math pedantics... <sigh>)

Hate to tell you, but you're wrong. I am 453% me.

The second officer has been suspended:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Second ... 21.html?dr

gigag04 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

gigag04 wrote:TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

mikedude.

I see it now, I skipped to end. Just got back from 21 hr 3day round trip to Tuscaloosa. Brain. Fried.

No problem, gigag. Tuscaloosa might well fry what little brain I have left too.

gigag04 wrote:TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

mikedude.

I completely understand the safety issues when booking a prisoner in a jail, and if a body cavity search is called for in that situation, then it is what it is. But absent an arrest, it is a sick and evil thing to do to somebody, particularly right there in public on the side of the road. Jesus.......put yourself in their shoes. Is that what you would want done to you? All I know is that if you do a body cavity search on me, on the side of the road, especially with a 2nd hand glove, you darn well BETTER find something or I'm going to own your hindparts, and your house, and your department's budget for the next 10 years. How come it's not rape when you do it to a non-consenting innocent person, but it is rape if I do it? If any cop thinks he can stick a finger in my body where God never intended it to go, then I will, by God, give him a very good reason to arrest me, and he may well have to shoot me because I am NOT submitting to that kind of indignity and abuse without getting some licks in. I don't care what the reasoning is. You don't do that to someone without first arresting them. If you're a cop and you think this is OK to digitally rape somebody on the roadside without arresting and booking them first, then your moral compass is so far out of gimbal that you aren't qualified to be a cop.

End of story.

No, dangit.....NOT end of story. I swear to God that this is NOT something the Founders would have understood to be OK. Cops who make excuses that "well uuuhhhh....the Supreme Court allows it....." flat dishonor their oaths. I don't want to hear a cop justify this stuff to me. That doesn't give me faith in law enforcement. No. I want to hear LEOs say "you're right, that is wrong, and raping a citizen on the roadside in some unbridled effort to find evidence before arresting and bringing them in is dead wrong and unacceptable." 30-40 years ago, this would have been unthinkable, and it is just another example of the slippery slope we're on toward a police state. Let me ask you LEOs who think this is OK......since there was a time when it was unthinkable, and now it is SOP, how long will it be before you think it's OK to just cut somebody open with your knife to find out what they've swallowed?

Seriously. I am really disappointed that anyone who thinks of himself as a decent cop would defend this practice by the side of the road like that. Just one more reason to withdraw from society.

v-rog wrote:Both females checked with the same pair of gloves! Say it isn't so!

It's on video. The dashcam was running the whole time. The two victims are suing.