Massachusetts bill to end qualified immunity and allow officers to be held personally liable for misconduct on the job (Boston: buy, salary)

[Bridge781]

No idea why anyone would think arresting someone is glamourous. I can see how helping someone and getting an article about yourself in the paper might be nice and that does happen. But it’s certainly not a glamorous job.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That's base salary. Any union cop contract I've seen then pads that with big kickers for nights, weekends, and holidays. Plus all the overtime and detail work guarding the hole. In my backwater leafy suburban town, more than half the police force makes 6 figures. I find it hard to believe any Boston cop unless they're a new hire only makes $89k. I don't begrudge Boston police for that level of compensation. It's massively expensive to live in Boston and it's a high stress urban cop job. Just don't post Boston Herald fiction that Boston cops have a median of $89k.

Yes that is base salary. My point was that they are not earning $300K/yr like that poster claimed. If they are making $200K/yr, they can't have any form of a life and are literally digging themselves an early grave. It's also putting the public in danger, they really need to put a cap on the number of hours they work as they should with any line of work where they are dealing with life/death.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

My cousin was a Boston cop between the ages of 21 and 41. She hurt her back and ended up retiring. She is no longer a Boston cop, is now a stay at home mom and still gets 85k a year. I think it’s insane. If I hurt myself at work and decided to quit I’d get nothing. Her husband is also a Boston cop and does lots of overtime and makes about 200k a year. That’s his choice though. If overtime is available to someone and they take it and do the work I’m not sure why that makes people angry. I think it’s the cops and firefighters who retire at a young age and still are making 85k-90k a year still are what people should feel annoyed about. I guess it’s a perk of the job though.

I guess the idea is the burnout toll the police and firefighting careers take on one's body, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If they are retiring at 41 (with what is it like an 80% salary?), that is a little absurd. There must be light duty work available somewhere.

Originally Posted by Bridge781

I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this immunity bill. There are some rogue cops out there but I believe there are more ones that are chill that really don’t even want to touch anyone or even have to speak to anyone these days.

And that's a huge problem, if they are scared to do their job then crime will spike. That's a given.

[Bridge781]

On the other hand my friends husband was a Boston cop and had a heart attack at 38. He survived and is retired. In a situation like that he should be compensated but that’s a bit different than a back injury. I know of someone else who lied about an injury, retired young, gets about 100k a year and has another job. That’s like hitting the lottery.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I guess the idea is the burnout toll the police and firefighting careers take on one's body, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If they are retiring at 41 (with what is it like an 80% salary?), that is a little absurd. There must be light duty work available somewhere.

Every firefighter I know has a second job usually as a contractor. I'm would guess that for the most part, the second career is harder work.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by robr2

Every firefighter I know has a second job usually as a contractor. I'm would guess that for the most part, the second career is harder work.

In some ways yes, others no. But yeah it's not uncommon for firefighters to get injured on their side jobs and be put out of work at the fire department. The taxpayers end up paying, one way or another

[bugelrex]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

My cousin was a Boston cop between the ages of 21 and 41. She hurt her back and ended up retiring. She is no longer a Boston cop, is now a stay at home mom and still gets 85k a year.

Anyone who would willingly sacrafice theirs to protect mine deserves to be compensated. Personally, i wouldn't want to work in a job where I'm hated by the local politicians and deal with murderers, rapists and risk being killed on any day.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Since anybody can be sued for any reason any arrest will result in a law suit
This Is a dodge to throw the cop under the bus instead of the city
And now you know why drug and alcohol counselors are almost 100% poor folk

[LexWest]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

My cousin was a Boston cop between the ages of 21 and 41. She hurt her back and ended up retiring. She is no longer a Boston cop, is now a stay at home mom and still gets 85k a year. I think it’s insane. If I hurt myself at work and decided to quit I’d get nothing. Her husband is also a Boston cop and does lots of overtime and makes about 200k a year. That’s his choice though. If overtime is available to someone and they take it and do the work I’m not sure why that makes people angry. I think it’s the cops and firefighters who retire at a young age and still are making 85k-90k a year still are what people should feel annoyed about. I guess it’s a perk of the job though.

Most Boston cops i know make about 150k a year. Not sure what the pay is like in other towns but staties seem to get paid more than BPD.

I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this immunity bill. There are some rogue cops out there but I believe there are more ones that are chill that really don’t even want to touch anyone or even have to speak to anyone these days.

I actually don’t have a problem with this. It’s a tradeoff for doing a physically demanding job. One can theoretically work behind a desk through your sixties. Unless you move up the ranks Police Chief, Fire Marshalls, etc. the average cop and fireman are retiring at earlier ages than the average worker (generally forties to fifties at most). For some being firefighters and police officers is putting your life on the line almost like soldiers, hence the perk. If there was no benefit for doing a “dangerous” job (and I”m aware the danger will differ based on department sizes and municipalities), even fewer would be willing.

[LTU2]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

Since anybody can be sued for any reason any arrest will result in a law suit. This Is a dodge to throw the cop under the bus instead of the city
And now you know why drug and alcohol counselors are almost 100% poor folk

As I understand this part of the proposed Senate bill:

(c) In an action under this section, qualified immunity shall not apply to claims for monetary damages except upon a finding that, at the time the conduct complained of occurred, no reasonable defendant could have had reason to believe that such conduct would violate the law.

It does not totally abolish QI. What the language indicates to me is that if the police action is determined to be, what a person of ordinary intelligence/prudence would consider lawful, the QI applies.

If such is not the case, then QI does not apply to personal liability.


This an example to contrast when QI does or does not apply that happened in Ohio a few years back. Let's say Ohio had in force a similar law as proposed in MA.

A white officer's daughter was dating a black man. The cop did not like it. Deliberately sitting waiting for the man to pull out of his drive or wherever it was, he prounced on him like a Tiger stalking his prey!

He pulled the car over and told the man to exit his vehicle as he was under arrest. The man asked why or what for, the cop said, and I'll try to quote, "I'll make things up as we go along". After the video surfaced he was fired.

This would be a case where personal QI would not apply, as no reasonably trained officer would believe his or her actions were constitutional/legal. No court could come to any other conclusion.

The purpose of the law, is in my opinion, is to put police on notice. For an honest mistake of fact or law, QI would apply. This is similar to the "Good faith" exception to the Exclusionary Rule.

Any person who sues an officer just because they believe they can now, if it passes, better have a very strong Cause of Action to negate QI, or they may be liable for court costs and be counter-sued!