Officer who was fired after hitting suspect with car gets new job

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
I hate to tell you my friend but that is the way of the world. I am in construction and we can, and are, sued for anything and everything. Hell that is the way our tort laws have been set up, anyone can sue anyone for whatever friggen reason they want. I could literally sue you because of the color of your eyes, yes a judge will throw it out but it doesn't change my ability to sue you.

I personally think we need a better way to weed out frivolous suits but until then I don't mind one bit if cops have to share in the same "suck" that I do. After all, they are just normal civilians, like me.

I'll give you that, I just don't think it is something that can feasibly work. Even with malpractice insurance, the premiums are generally paid by the hospital or practice that the doctor belongs to or are part of the salary package for the doctor. Even contractors that are insured are generally insured as a company in whole and is not that each individual worker is paying a premium. In this case, you are asking the each individual officer to pay for their own premiums for this liability insurance.

And I agree that there should be a way to weed out frivolous suits.

- Merg
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I'll give you that, I just don't think it is something that can feasibly work. Even with malpractice insurance, the premiums are generally paid by the hospital or practice that the doctor belongs to or are part of the salary package for the doctor. Even contractors that are insured are generally insured as a company in whole and is not that each individual worker is paying a premium. In this case, you are asking the each individual officer to pay for their own premiums for this liability insurance.

And I agree that there should be a way to weed out frivolous suits.

- Merg

I actually agree with you on that, and again the stopped clock is right :D. I'd make the departments themselves carry liability insurance just like I have to carry it but I'd let them give whoever it is that cuts the check an "itemized" summary of why their insurance is what it is. If one cop is causing the insurance to go up by 50% for the entire force then he needs looking into. It's basically the exact same system of liability insurance that I have to, by force of law, abide by.

Unfortunately, you and I both know that the unions would never allow such a thing to pass.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
I actually agree with you on that, and again the stopped clock is right :D. I'd make the departments themselves carry liability insurance just like I have to carry it but I'd let them give whoever it is that cuts the check an "itemized" summary of why their insurance is what it is. If one cop is causing the insurance to go up by 50% for the entire force then he needs looking into. It's basically the exact same system of liability insurance that I have to, by force of law, abide by.

Unfortunately, you and I both know that the unions would never allow such a thing to pass.

I know you don't like unions, but remember that not all departments are "weighed" down by unions. There are plenty of small departments out there that don't have unions and there are quite a few states that are right-to-work, such as Virginia. While the officers there can join a union, they cannot collective bargain at all and in reality the unions have no power.

And we have to stop meeting this way... LOL!

- Merg
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
I'll give you that, I just don't think it is something that can feasibly work. Even with malpractice insurance, the premiums are generally paid by the hospital or practice that the doctor belongs to or are part of the salary package for the doctor. Even contractors that are insured are generally insured as a company in whole and is not that each individual worker is paying a premium. In this case, you are asking the each individual officer to pay for their own premiums for this liability insurance.

And I agree that there should be a way to weed out frivolous suits.

- Merg
If you're part of a large hospital practice then yes the hospital will cover the cost of malpractice insurance. However, many docs are solo practitioners or part of a small private groups and they pay their own fees. In fact, in illinois malpractice costs for gynecologists are so high that almost all solo physicians have left the state in favor of other states with better laws.

Even more so even if say a police department was responsible for paying the fees for individual officers, malpractice costs would basically force them to get rid of cops that are seen as too high a risk, just like docs that expose hospitals to unnecessary and costly litigation will be gotten rid of.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
If you're part of a large hospital practice then yes the hospital will cover the cost of malpractice insurance. However, many docs are solo practitioners or part of a small private groups and they pay their own fees. In fact, in illinois malpractice costs for gynecologists are so high that almost all solo physicians have left the state in favor of other states with better laws.

Even more so even if say a police department was responsible for paying the fees for individual officers, malpractice costs would basically force them to get rid of cops that are seen as too high a risk, just like docs that expose hospitals to unnecessary and costly litigation will be gotten rid of.

I don't necessarily have an issue with that, but wonder how many officers that are not necessarily high risk, but the victim of bad fortune will be ousted for none other than they have had complaints or suits filed on the them even when they are basically nuisance complaints.

I have a friend that had a car pull out in front of him and he rear-ended it. Basically it gunned it and pulled out in front of him and then immediately slammed on the brakes due to traffic being backed. He rear-ended the vehicle. He had an in-car camera that captured everything. The driver of the other vehicle was found at fault and was found guilty in court. The other driver then sued by friend to damages and injury. The County just settled instead even bothering to go to court. So, does that mean he's high risk since he has now caused the County to settle a case that really should not have existed in the first place?

- Merg
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
I watched that video multiple times and the cop was blocking the suspect that was running away. Hell the suspect hit the front fender half way down.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
Interesting idea, but I don’t think it would work. People would sue officers left and right whether the officers were in the right or not. And with insurance companies, they will work out a settlement rather than go to trial due to the cost, but it would still be a hit on the officer. After 3 or 4 of these, how likely is the insurance company going to be willing to continue to insure the officer?

- Merg

This could be said about literally any kind of insurance. Is this a major issue with car insurance? Workers comp? Malpractice? Should we just eliminate insurance entirely? Just let me know so I can contact all the insurance companies and tell them to close up shop because their business model is a failure.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
This could be said about literally any kind of insurance. Is this a major issue with car insurance? Workers comp? Malpractice? Should we just eliminate insurance entirely? Just let me know so I can contact all the insurance companies and tell them to close up shop because their business model is a failure.

You’re looking at two different models there. With car insurance, your premiums are based off of claims that YOU make to the insurance company.

With worker’s compensation and malpractice insurance, it is normally the company paying those premiums and not the individual.

- Merg
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
I don't necessarily have an issue with that, but wonder how many officers that are not necessarily high risk, but the victim of bad fortune will be ousted for none other than they have had complaints or suits filed on the them even when they are basically nuisance complaints.

I'm guessing you consider ANY complaints made against cops to be nuisance complaints.

I have a friend that had a car pull out in front of him and he rear-ended it. Basically it gunned it and pulled out in front of him and then immediately slammed on the brakes due to traffic being backed. He rear-ended the vehicle. He had an in-car camera that captured everything. The driver of the other vehicle was found at fault and was found guilty in court. The other driver then sued by friend to damages and injury. The County just settled instead even bothering to go to court. So, does that mean he's high risk since he has now caused the County to settle a case that really should not have existed in the first place?

- Merg

If this happens to him 3x/year then sure. I'm not aware of any insurance company who cancels insurance over a single not-at-fault accident. Why are you so adamantly searching for edge cases in order to show that we shouldn't have a system where cops can be held accountable for their actions? Even your wackiest edge cases aren't reasons not to have LEO insurance.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
You’re looking at two different models there. With car insurance, your premiums are based off of claims that YOU make to the insurance company.

And also claims the people you crash into make to your insurance company. You know this, yet you still presented the argument above.

With worker’s compensation and malpractice insurance, it is normally the company paying those premiums and not the individual.

- Merg

So let the "company" (city/county/state) pay for LEO insurance. Problem solved. I'm less interested in the cost of insurance and more interested in the ability for a bad LEO to become uninsurable.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
I don't necessarily have an issue with that, but wonder how many officers that are not necessarily high risk, but the victim of bad fortune will be ousted for none other than they have had complaints or suits filed on the them even when they are basically nuisance complaints.

I have a friend that had a car pull out in front of him and he rear-ended it. Basically it gunned it and pulled out in front of him and then immediately slammed on the brakes due to traffic being backed. He rear-ended the vehicle. He had an in-car camera that captured everything. The driver of the other vehicle was found at fault and was found guilty in court. The other driver then sued by friend to damages and injury. The County just settled instead even bothering to go to court. So, does that mean he's high risk since he has now caused the County to settle a case that really should not have existed in the first place?

- Merg
Frivolous suits are generally problematic and its up to legislators to figure out how to make them go away. Unfortunately this is something on the heap of 1000 other important issues that legislators continue to ignore.

As for the county settling, I'd be interested to know how much they settled for. Regardless, ultimately I think most people are in agreement that something needs to be done to make bad cops unemployable forever, rather than remaining a constant drain on societies taxes and constant threat to the general public. The problem is too many legislators seen police officers as infallible angels of justice, as opposed to simply being regular people with regular day jobs.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Unpunished police brutality is not a result of the "laws imperfections". Maybe we can call it police "whoopsies" or "bloopers" and all have a laugh. You belittle people's dislike of unpunished police brutality. Why?
By laws imperfections I meant the inability of the existence of a law to prevent its violation. The only way to theoretically improve the the force of laws that depend on deterence for their compliance is to punish violations by death. The outrage that people experience against law violators inevitably leads to this desire to punish more and more right up to death for any offender. Use your outrage to activate your brain to discover more imaginative and psychologically sound ways to modify human behavior. Outrage is for toddlers.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
By laws imperfections I meant the inability of the existence of a law to prevent its violation. The only way to theoretically improve the the force of laws that depend on deterence for their compliance is to punish violations by death.

Actually you could try and actually enforce the law. That would work. For some reason, we've decided that the law should not be enforced upon police. You're a smart person, so why are you thinking in death penalty extremes on this matter when the actual legal penalties are rarely if ever applied?

The outrage that people experience against law violators inevitably leads to this desire to punish more and more right up to death for any offender.

Can we start with punishing the offender with the actual penalty for breaking the actual law? Cops pretty much universally believe that punishment (or the threat of punishment) is a deterrent. That people won't commit crimes as much if they fear the consequences of committing the crime. And yet they pretty much universally believe that they themselves should never receive punishment. It is an admission that they believe they should be allowed to be pieces of shit. Just so you know, most people aren't going to be OK with that.

Use your outrage to activate your brain to discover more imaginative and psychologically sound ways to modify human behavior. Outrage is for toddlers.

Outrage is a valid human response to asshole behavior. I don't understand why you would make the argument that I shouldn't feel outraged over outrageous behavior that is allowed to happen.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I know you don't like unions, but remember that not all departments are "weighed" down by unions. There are plenty of small departments out there that don't have unions and there are quite a few states that are right-to-work, such as Virginia. While the officers there can join a union, they cannot collective bargain at all and in reality the unions have no power.

And we have to stop meeting this way... LOL!

- Merg

I can't attest to small departments not having unions, I was under the impression that they could join larger unions that covered more than one department but maybe you are right.

As far the right to work states, that is complete nonsense. Texas is a right to work state and the police unions are very powerful over there and they negotiate all kinds of pro-cop but bad for the public things. This is just one of many from the first link of my google search, it is from San Antonio in a very very right to work state. You really have to watch the video to get the full scope of what this officer did but here is the article.

The video depicted the August 2015 arrest of then-48-year-old Eloy Leal, who told internal affairs investigators that he had gone outside to investigate after someone had been injured during a shooting in his neighborhood. Leal said that he saw bullet casings on the street near the scene and that he pointed them out to Belver, who was one of the responding officers, according to internal affairs and arbitration documents.

Then, Leal said, he criticized Belver for missing the casings and announced that he was walking home to get a camera to document the evidence. As Leal began walking away, Belver arrested him, records show.

The next 17 minutes were captured on the camera mounted on Belver’s dashboard. Belver was recorded telling Leal, who was handcuffed in the back seat of the squad car, that he could go free if he was willing to fight.

“If you beat my a--, don’t f---ing kill me,” Leal pleaded as Belver uncuffed him.

“Naw, as soon as they come off, I’m going to beat your a--,” Belver responded.

The officer ordered Leal to get out of the squad car and run or fight, but Leal refused. Belver recuffed Leal, who asked what he was being charged with.

“I’ll think of something,” Belver responded
, driving away with Leal in the back seat. Leal was charged with interfering with the duties of a public official, a charge that prosecutors later dropped. Leal could not be reached for comment.

The incident was not the first time that Belver had been accused of misconduct by people he arrested. The department had fired Belver in 2010 after two other allegations that led to separate investigations by internal affairs.

In the first incident, Belver was accused of unlawfully entering a home and roughing up two men who were accused of threatening neighbors with a gun.

In the second, two weeks later, Belver arrested Carlos Flores, a San Antonio mechanic, on suspicion of drunken driving. Then, according to a complaint from Flores, Belver challenged him to a fight.

Belver “told me that if I could kick his [a--], he would let me go,” Flores said in his complaint. By the time Flores reached the police detention center, he had a bruised left eye, injuries to his back and neck, and a large bruise across his face, an internal affairs investigation would later determine.


Flores, who could not be reached for comment, was convicted of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and felony assault against a public servant. The assault conviction was later overturned on appeal.

But Belver and his union attorneys won the officer’s job back after his 2010 firing, negotiating a “last chance agreement” that allowed Belver to return to work as long as he had no further misconduct and agreed that he would not patrol alone.

After the 2015 video surfaced of Belver challenging Leal to a fight, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus fired Belver again — writing on Feb. 12, 2016, that the officer had violated several department policies as well as his last-chance agreement.

Once again, Belver appealed his firing.

During the two-day hearing last September, Belver’s attorney argued that because the last-chance agreement was limited to two years, it had expired eight months before the Leal encounter. The attorney also noted that the union contract prohibited the department from considering discipline for matters older than 180 days, which would exclude the prior two allegations of assault made against Belver.

Arbitrator Lynne M. Gomez, a labor lawyer, agreed with the union’s position on the last-chance agreement. In the circumstances, a firing was too harsh, she ruled.

“While the Chief testified that he thinks the Grievant is a ‘disaster waiting to happen’ . . . just cause generally requires that discipline be applied progressively to achieve a corrective goal,” Gomez said in her ruling.

Gomez in February issued Belver a 45-day suspension and ordered that he be returned to work with back pay, which city officials said will be $66,662.

Reached by email, Belver declined to be interviewed, referring questions to the head of the police union, who he said would be “familiar with both this incident and the arbitration process that followed.”

Mike Helle of the San Antonio Police Officers Association said in an interview with The Washington Post that Belver was in the wrong because he had placed himself, his fellow officers and the public at risk. But Helle, the president of the officers association, said he supports the arbitrator’s decision because not every infraction merits termination.

“Arbitration creates an environment in which the final say-so of whether the termination is justifiable or not is in the hands of a third party,” Helle said. “It creates a bit of fairness. It takes the emotion out of the argument.”

McManus, the police chief, declined to be interviewed about the Belver case or the other 29 officers whom the San Antonio Police Department has been compelled to rehire since 2006.

“I’m sure many police chiefs across the country share the same frustrations that I do when an arbitrator overturns a termination,” McManus said in a statement.

So the police chief thinks that this guy is a disaster waiting to happen, has fired him not once but twice and both times the union forced him to not only rehire him but to pay him back pay from the time that he fired him.

As much as you seem to know about police work I find it hard to believe that you weren't aware that this is by and large how it works everywhere regardless of right to work or not, you have always been on the up and up so I am going to give you a pass but on this issue you really should educate yourself because you are very wrong. And I don't have a problem with unions in general, I have a very big problem with police unions, they have become WAY to powerful and hold way too much influence over not only the rules/regulations of police but also politically. It is absolutely absurd that a police chief can't get rid of problem cops, the guy above quite literally challenged a guy he was arresting for no good reason to a fight, told him that if he won the fight he would let him go, uncuffed him and pulled him out of the car to fight and when the guy smartly refused because if he did win he probably would have been shot the cop put him back in cuffs and said "I'll think of something to charge you with" and it wasn't the first time! What if it was an actual bad guy that did decide to fight, whooped his ass and took his service weapon? Hell there are thousands of what ifs but nope, can't fire him because of the union.... In TEXAS...

Another cop was convicted of sexually assaulting a 19 year old girl while on duty in his patrol car. Chief fired him but the union ordered him to be rehired. Or how about a cop who was investigating the murder of his cousin, called in sick and instead went to a club with a cousin (obviously not the dead one) and after the club closed he was the getaway driver for his cousin who murdered a suspect in the original murder not far from his car. He heard the shots and passed several police cruisers when he was driving away but didn't stop to help obviously because he was the fucking getaway driver! Fired and forced by the union to rehire, with backpay of course.

How about in Florida, a right to work and "at-will" state, police chief in Miami fired a cop who shot an unarmed man. "The department completed its internal investigation in November 2012. The next month, the city’s Firearms Review Board — made up of three assistant chiefs, a police major, and a police attorney — concluded that the shooting was not justified. The board said that neither Goyos nor anyone else had been in imminent danger and questioned whether the physical evidence supported Goyos’s version of events.". That cost the taxpayers a million dollars in a settlement, cop was fired and once again the union forced them to rehire him and pay him over $75,000 in backpay.

Thos are all from the very first article that popped up in my google search. I hope that you will read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap.../police-fired-rehired/?utm_term=.3f0af7d74996
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
You’re looking at two different models there. With car insurance, your premiums are based off of claims that YOU make to the insurance company.

With worker’s compensation and malpractice insurance, it is normally the company paying those premiums and not the individual.

- Merg

Wrong, in every type of insurance except medical insurance to a degree, its price is based on RISK. That is why your auto insurance will go up if you get a few speeding tickets, you are deemed to be a riskier driver.

Your buddies case very often happens to the general public as well and your insurance almost never goes up because the insurance company knows you weren't at fault. Hell the insurance company is the one making the settlement payment, unfortunately in our civil court system it is often cheaper to settle for a small amount than to fight and win in court. The ambulance chasing greaseball lawyers know this very well and they can get a $10,000 settlement, of which they keep roughly half, for just writing a letter. Despite the insurance company writing that $10,000 check they still consider you not at fault and it doesn't affect your premiums.

Insurance companies are extremely good at measuring risk.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
If this happens to him 3x/year then sure. I'm not aware of any insurance company who cancels insurance over a single not-at-fault accident. Why are you so adamantly searching for edge cases in order to show that we shouldn't have a system where cops can be held accountable for their actions? Even your wackiest edge cases aren't reasons not to have LEO insurance.

They don't. Something similar actually happened to me and Allstate settled with the guy for $10,000 which was the max my insurance at the time would pay and my rates didn't even go up much less them cancel me. They flat out told me that they knew I wasn't at fault, they knew that the guy didn't deserve a dime but given the circumstances it was simply cheaper to settle for $10,000 than to fight it in court.

Frivolous suits are generally problematic and its up to legislators to figure out how to make them go away. Unfortunately this is something on the heap of 1000 other important issues that legislators continue to ignore.

As for the county settling, I'd be interested to know how much they settled for. Regardless, ultimately I think most people are in agreement that something needs to be done to make bad cops unemployable forever, rather than remaining a constant drain on societies taxes and constant threat to the general public. The problem is too many legislators seen police officers as infallible angels of justice, as opposed to simply being regular people with regular day jobs.

They settled for a pittance, see above example. Like I said, it's often cheaper to throw them a little cash than paying the legal fees on the case even though you are 100% sure you will win. Insurers are well aware of when and why this happens, like I said, they are extremely good at pricing risk. It's what they do.

I couldn't agree more about the frivolous lawsuit thing. Unfortunately, it isn't an easy fix without screwing over people with actual grievances especially given our lawmakers propensity to fuck shit up. Being in the construction industry I can't tell you how many frivolous lawsuits that we get.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Actually you could try and actually enforce the law. That would work. For some reason, we've decided that the law should not be enforced upon police. You're a smart person, so why are you thinking in death penalty extremes on this matter when the actual legal penalties are rarely if ever applied?



Can we start with punishing the offender with the actual penalty for breaking the actual law? Cops pretty much universally believe that punishment (or the threat of punishment) is a deterrent. That people won't commit crimes as much if they fear the consequences of committing the crime. And yet they pretty much universally believe that they themselves should never receive punishment. It is an admission that they believe they should be allowed to be pieces of shit. Just so you know, most people aren't going to be OK with that.



Outrage is a valid human response to asshole behavior. I don't understand why you would make the argument that I shouldn't feel outraged over outrageous behavior that is allowed to happen.

My argument is that whether it is enforcing law that is not enforced or increasing the penalty for violation is all an appeal in a single direction, more or stiffer enforcement. There is nothing wrong with outrage at injustice. But there is outrage that can be productive, neutral, or counterproductive. Enforcing law that is not being enforced, as you are calling for here, will only happen if there is an accompanying realization for the need. Outrage will provide a motivating factor, a wake-up call as it were but will not of itself provide a rational roadmap to a workable solution. All sides of the issue need to come together and share their perspectives to develop some consensus as to how to proceed. Abuse of power is outrageous but unless it leads to thought out solutions it can be a permanent frustrated state. Outrage motivates via the threat of violence, threat of punishment, but there is also something called the love of justice. I would rather be motivated by the latter.