Latest / Brian Thomas / FOP Pres Ken Kober, Latest taxpayer giveaway

Transcript

FOP Pres Ken Kober, Latest taxpayer giveaway · Brian Thomas

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Six thirty one. If you have KARRC the talk station
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: taking me back Joe's tracker with the bumper music. This
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: was the theme song for the Cops Show back when
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Chief Tom Stracker was chief of the cincinnt Police Department,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: and really missed that segment. Eddie, how you think we
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: can get the current police chief to start a cop
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: show up? Joe? Yeah, with a search warrant. I can't
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: get one of those. Let's see what Ken Cober Fraternal
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Order of Police President Ken Kober, representing the Cincinnati Police Officers.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: God bless you and the CINCINNTI Police Department. Ken Cobra,
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: welcome back your reaction to this proposed settlement another one,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: not the ones we've been talking about, but this new
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: one point four to five million dollars settlement with a
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: family of Kwon Davier Hicks, who was shot by a
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: CINCINNTI police officer and died as a consequence apparently of
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: him pointing a gun at him. Ken, welcome back. This
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: apparently needs to be proved by Cincinnati City Council. We
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: only heard about it yesterday, but at least one councilman,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Seth Walsh, has said he will vote to approve the settlement.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: What was your reaction to this? What is your reaction
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: to this or is this just another payoff by the
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: city that's unwarranted. Good to have you back on.
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: Hey, good morning, Brian, Thanks for having me. This is
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: this is at least one where I can understand why
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: they did it. Yeah, unlike some of these other ones,
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: you know, in this case, this is something that's been
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: going on for ten years. The Federal court had said
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: since the onset of this, the police officers they did
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: it absolutely nothing wrong. Their decision to use force was
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: absolutely justified. This all came down to it. And let
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: me back up for this second. Though Judge Barrett from
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: the Federal Court initially ruled it, said a summary judgment,
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: I'm dismissing this. The officers did absolutely nothing wrong. In
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: twenty so that was in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: the plaintiffs for this appealed it to the Sixth Circuit Court.
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: They then returned it back to Judge Barrett basically said
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: we're not really sure if the officers had a right
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: to go into the residents that they went into, because
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: they came into play as to whether or not this
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: was a multi family or single family, and whether this
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: was a common area or not a common area. So
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: they returned it back to Judge Barrett, and Judge Barrett's like,
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: I don't have a problem with what the cops did.
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: So they appealed it again in twenty twenty four and
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: they came back with basically the same decision. Cops did
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: nothing wrong. But here there's still this question that's lingering
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: out there as to whether they had the right to
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: do this. So based off of that, and not only
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: that question, but also as to know, we had one
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: of the officers that retired that was involved in this
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: that basic said, listen, I would like to move on
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: with my life. This has been hanging over my head
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: for eleven years. You know, the courts have already said
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: I did nothing wrong, right, and the city's like, look
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: what this is eleven years in the making. What do
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: we do? Are we going to have this officer retired
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: officer come back? That certainly presents a challenge. You know,
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: the fop's legal team was involved in this since day one,
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: and they all mutually agreed, you know, this is probably
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: the best decision. So you know, as you well know,
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: I'm not usually shy about criticizing the city when they
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: do things that I don't agree with. In this case,
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: I can understand why they did it.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Well, there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment right to
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: be to get a search warrant. Correct, Like if you're
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: in hot pursuit of an individual, that individual enters into
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: a room the residents or otherwise, you can go in
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: there without waiting around for a warrant.
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: Correct, Yeah, without a doubt and understand, I stand by
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: these officers. I believe they did absolutely nothing wrong. And
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: like I said, the Core even agreed that they're appropriate.
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: There was an appropriate use of force.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, okay, okay, this is where we need to
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: break it down. Use of force. They were clearly faced
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: with eminent apprehension grievous bodily harm or murder because there
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: was a rifle pointed at them. So if your your
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: fear for your life, legitimately so and reasonably so, that's
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: when you can use deadly force. They did, so, that
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: was fine. It was the entering the room whereupon they
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: came upon this guy pointing a rifle at them. The
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: entry of the room is the question mark. Was it
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: a civil rights violation to not get a warrant before
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: going in there. Were they in hot pursuit or do
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: they just believe he might be in there? Isn't that
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: really fundamentally what we're talking about here.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: It is, and this is where an officer's job. You
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: are damned if you did, you're damned if you don't. Yep,
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: you know they were there for a radio run. This
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: wasn't like some kind of investigation. They were called there.
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: They were called there to investigate somebody that was threatening somebody.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: I believe it was with the fire. So they're there
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: in good faith, acting off of a nine to one
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: one call. Like I said, This wasn't some drug investigation
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: or some kind of other investigation where they're doing some
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: kind of proactive work. They were called to go there.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: They didn't ask to go, they were called. And that's
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: where I said, I stand by what these officers did.
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: And if even if you read this statement that came
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: out from city manager share a Long, she said, the
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: officers acted appropriately. We stand by them. We stand by
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: the work that they did. This comes down to this
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: is nothing more than really just a business decision, and
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: for that I can at least I can understand this
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: wasn't something as we know last week that I was.
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: I was certainly pretty upset about, you know, doing things
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: kind of quietly, and this is something that was done
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: over eleven years, and it certainly wasn't done quietly. The
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: FOP was involved in this from the get go, so
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: it's certainly a different situation than what we've seen recently.
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: All right, well, I pause. I'm going to bring you
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: back when you get update on the whole hint in
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: silences deafening thing in city Hall, and also your reaction
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: to Greg Landsman apparently bringing back the bacon because the
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: city of Cincinnati won't pay money for the for city cameras.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Want to get your reaction to that as well. We'll
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: get another segment here with FOP President Can Kover. I
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: want to first stay big picture with Jack add In
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: coming up at the top of the air News meantime,
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: FOP President Chapter six and nine that represents the SINCINNT
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Police Department. Ken Cobra on the program, Kent your reaction.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: They did go into executive session, since any council did.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: They did not tell anybody why they were going into
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: executive session, which apparently violates Cincinnati Council requirements. The public
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: needs to know what they're talking about. There are limitations
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: for why you can go into executive session, like speaking
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: about legal matters. We don't know what they talked about,
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: but they went in. They were there for two hours,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: and not a peep from anybody from council, the city
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: manager's office, the mayor. Nothing revealed. What was your reaction
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: to that, since they were talking apparently we guess about
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: this hint in settlement.
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, two hours of executive session. I wholly disagree that.
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: When they're discussing city matters, discussing how to spend city
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: tax dollars, presumably to be able to do that in secret,
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: I completely disagree with it. And of course, you know,
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: the media was there and I talked to some of
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: the media outlets, and of course I'm not talking about
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: I'm not talking about it. How they're able to get
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: away with it has bend me. I mean, a lack
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: of transparency. You ask every other city, you ask every
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: other city department be transparent, which they should be. We
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: all should be transparent. We're spending people's harder money. They
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: have a right to know how it's being used. And
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: this just I completely disagree with how this is being handled.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Well that and they need a justification if they're going
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: to approve a settlement. I don't care if it's a
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: dollar or ten million or whatever. We need a justification
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: because right now, no one seems to be able to
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: come up with one, most notably given the fact that
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: a recipient of some of the settlement might someone who
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: allegedly has suffered damages, damages as a consequence of Ryan
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Hinton's death, his dad who killed and murder literally murdered.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: I would argue, a police officer literally ran them over
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: a sheriff's deputy because his son had been shot by
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: a Cincinnati police officer. You can't even find any logic
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: or reason in that one. But that really irks people
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: knowing that the man who killed a sheriff's deputy might
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: get a chunk of the money.
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: No, without a doubt it, I said. And that's that's
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: probably the biggest exception I take to all of this.
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: You know, like I said, this settlement that they came
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: out with yesterday, I can rationalize and I can understand
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: why they did it. You know, it was something that
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: was done with full transparency. You know, the FOP was
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: aware of it. They came out what they explain why
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: this happened over eleven years and now we have this
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: that there's absolutely no transparency whatsoever. It's being done behind
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: closed doors. It's being discussed, nobody knows what's going on,
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: and that's it just says, this is not how a
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: city government should be operating.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: Well, and the city government should be operating more with
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: public safety in mind. And we obviously know that they
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: have to have purvol didn't even acknowledge we had a
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: crime problem until after the July last year beat down,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: where he then said, all right, here's five point four
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: million dollars. We're going to put this towards some public safety,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: including the installation of some street cameras, cameras which had
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: been promised for years and years. I found out yesterday
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Greg Lansman said he has secured one million dollars in
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: federal taxpayer money for a project that will provide Cincinnati
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: police with new cameras and some mental health resources. This
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: is Greg Lansman coming to the rescue of Cincinnati City
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: Council and actually, more importantly, the residents of the city
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: who are clamoring for this. Just yesterday. It was announced
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: on the top of the air and new as you
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: heard it, we're already installing I guess ninety new cameras.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: We had the money, just no one bothered installing them.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Is this Greg Lansman trying to score political points in
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: advance of the November election, saying I acknowledge there's an
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: issue downtown with crime.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Well, to be fair, to be fair, this is something
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: that Greg Landsman has actually worked on the last two
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: years to try to get this, and for one reason
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: or another, it's died. Dies in the Senate, dies in
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: the House. Oh yea, So I will give him credit.
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: He has been trying to do this for two years
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: and who knows, it may die in the Senate again.
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: The House approve this, but is the Senate can improve
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: And this is where the bureaucracy of government is just
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: it's astounding to see that it takes this long to
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: allocate a million dollars out of a trillion dollar budget.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: I musten all day long. I'll agree with you on that. Yeah,
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: you expect something of the federal government. You're bound for
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: disappointment because they can't agree that two and two is four.
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: Yet if he's been clamored to try to do this
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: via federal taxpayer dollars. For a couple of years, the
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: City of Cincinnati has been promising cameras, for example, in
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: the West End for a couple of years. Everyone appears
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: to acknowledge that they are beneficial in at least deterring
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: crime to some To some extent, they are great in
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: terms of finding people who commit crimes because you got
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: video evidence of it, Ken Cober, do you think over
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: the last couple of years the City of Cincinnati could
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: have found the million dollars Greg's been pushing for for
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: the last couple of years within their own budget and
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: prioritize the cameras, Ken.
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: Without a doubt, a doubt. And I talked about this,
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: I think it was last week with you about how
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: they we only have two people, you know, two civilians
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: to know to maintain and operate these cameras. However, because
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: it's now a priority, they've now detailed some officers that
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: have some pretty tech savvy abilities that are now going
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: to be detailed from their administrative assignments to go out
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: and install and repair these cameras. So now you're right
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: to your point. Now, all of a sudden it has
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: become an absolute priority. And because now it's a priority,
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: it's getting done. When to be quite honest, this is
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: something investigators have begged for for years to get cameras fixed,
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: to get cameras up. But now it's finally becoming.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: A priority, finally becoming priority. And then there's all that
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: Ohio state money that's are in resources have been offered
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: by the governor. We don't know the total value you
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: of that, but it isn't going to cost the city
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: taxpayers a dime. You would think that the administration would
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: embrace every single bit of that free resource offer from
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: the state. I guess though they're a little upset because
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: they probably wouldn't be able to control it because it
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: would be the highest state patrol as opposed to the
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: since police, No, without a doubt.
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: And that's that's something that I've certainly been critical of
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: the mare as well as you're you're getting resources in
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: the city that they have to pay for. And I
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: understand you have pay taxes in Ohio. We're still paying
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: for this, but we're actually getting a return on our investment. Yeah,
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: by having these extra resources, and why it hasn't been
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: utilized center as something I've certainly been critical of. I'll
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: never understand, you know, yeah.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: A better return on investment than the six hundred million
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: dollars that you'll have taxpayers are going to pay to
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: build us of the Cleveland Browns Stadium.
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there's no doubt about that. Or what is it
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: like three hundred and fifty million dollars that the county's
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: now invested into a pay course stadium that we we
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: saw that they did not exactly have the best season.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: This year either priorities, priorities, priorities you folks on the West,
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: then suck it up, you know, maybe someday FLP President
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: Ken Kover, thank you so much for the willingness to
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: spend some time with my listeners and me on this
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: and keep up the great work representing the police of
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: the police force. And as I always point out, you
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: got my audiences back, or my back audience has your back,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: and all the police departments back. We'll have we'll have
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: you on again real soon. Keep up the good work.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Thanks Brian. It's always a pleasure.
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: It's six point fifty right now. If you have KC
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: detalk station right after