FOP Pres Ken Kober, Latest taxpayer giveaway

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Six thirty one. If you have KARRC the talk station
taking me back Joe's tracker with the bumper music. This
was the theme song for the Cops Show back when
Chief Tom Stracker was chief of the cincinnt Police Department,
and really missed that segment. Eddie, how you think we
can get the current police chief to start a cop
show up? Joe? Yeah, with a search warrant. I can't

(00:27):
get one of those. Let's see what Ken Cober Fraternal
Order of Police President Ken Kober, representing the Cincinnati Police Officers.
God bless you and the CINCINNTI Police Department. Ken Cobra,
welcome back your reaction to this proposed settlement another one,
not the ones we've been talking about, but this new
one point four to five million dollars settlement with a
family of Kwon Davier Hicks, who was shot by a

(00:50):
CINCINNTI police officer and died as a consequence apparently of
him pointing a gun at him. Ken, welcome back. This
apparently needs to be proved by Cincinnati City Council. We
only heard about it yesterday, but at least one councilman,
Seth Walsh, has said he will vote to approve the settlement.
What was your reaction to this? What is your reaction
to this or is this just another payoff by the

(01:10):
city that's unwarranted. Good to have you back on.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
Hey, good morning, Brian, Thanks for having me. This is
this is at least one where I can understand why
they did it. Yeah, unlike some of these other ones,
you know, in this case, this is something that's been
going on for ten years. The Federal court had said
since the onset of this, the police officers they did

(01:35):
it absolutely nothing wrong. Their decision to use force was
absolutely justified. This all came down to it. And let
me back up for this second. Though Judge Barrett from
the Federal Court initially ruled it, said a summary judgment,
I'm dismissing this. The officers did absolutely nothing wrong. In
twenty so that was in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,

(01:57):
the plaintiffs for this appealed it to the Sixth Circuit Court.
They then returned it back to Judge Barrett basically said
we're not really sure if the officers had a right
to go into the residents that they went into, because

(02:19):
they came into play as to whether or not this
was a multi family or single family, and whether this
was a common area or not a common area. So
they returned it back to Judge Barrett, and Judge Barrett's like,
I don't have a problem with what the cops did.
So they appealed it again in twenty twenty four and

(02:39):
they came back with basically the same decision. Cops did
nothing wrong. But here there's still this question that's lingering
out there as to whether they had the right to
do this. So based off of that, and not only
that question, but also as to know, we had one
of the officers that retired that was involved in this

(02:59):
that basic said, listen, I would like to move on
with my life. This has been hanging over my head
for eleven years. You know, the courts have already said
I did nothing wrong, right, and the city's like, look
what this is eleven years in the making. What do
we do? Are we going to have this officer retired
officer come back? That certainly presents a challenge. You know,
the fop's legal team was involved in this since day one,

(03:22):
and they all mutually agreed, you know, this is probably
the best decision. So you know, as you well know,
I'm not usually shy about criticizing the city when they
do things that I don't agree with. In this case,
I can understand why they did it.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Well, there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment right to
be to get a search warrant. Correct, Like if you're
in hot pursuit of an individual, that individual enters into
a room the residents or otherwise, you can go in
there without waiting around for a warrant.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
Correct, Yeah, without a doubt and understand, I stand by
these officers. I believe they did absolutely nothing wrong. And
like I said, the Core even agreed that they're appropriate.
There was an appropriate use of force.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
Yeah, okay, okay, okay, this is where we need to
break it down. Use of force. They were clearly faced
with eminent apprehension grievous bodily harm or murder because there
was a rifle pointed at them. So if your your
fear for your life, legitimately so and reasonably so, that's
when you can use deadly force. They did, so, that
was fine. It was the entering the room whereupon they

(04:25):
came upon this guy pointing a rifle at them. The
entry of the room is the question mark. Was it
a civil rights violation to not get a warrant before
going in there. Were they in hot pursuit or do
they just believe he might be in there? Isn't that
really fundamentally what we're talking about here.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
It is, and this is where an officer's job. You
are damned if you did, you're damned if you don't. Yep,
you know they were there for a radio run. This
wasn't like some kind of investigation. They were called there.
They were called there to investigate somebody that was threatening somebody.
I believe it was with the fire. So they're there
in good faith, acting off of a nine to one

(05:04):
one call. Like I said, This wasn't some drug investigation
or some kind of other investigation where they're doing some
kind of proactive work. They were called to go there.
They didn't ask to go, they were called. And that's
where I said, I stand by what these officers did.
And if even if you read this statement that came
out from city manager share a Long, she said, the

(05:24):
officers acted appropriately. We stand by them. We stand by
the work that they did. This comes down to this
is nothing more than really just a business decision, and
for that I can at least I can understand this
wasn't something as we know last week that I was.
I was certainly pretty upset about, you know, doing things
kind of quietly, and this is something that was done

(05:46):
over eleven years, and it certainly wasn't done quietly. The
FOP was involved in this from the get go, so
it's certainly a different situation than what we've seen recently.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
All right, well, I pause. I'm going to bring you
back when you get update on the whole hint in
silences deafening thing in city Hall, and also your reaction
to Greg Landsman apparently bringing back the bacon because the
city of Cincinnati won't pay money for the for city cameras.
Want to get your reaction to that as well. We'll
get another segment here with FOP President Can Kover. I
want to first stay big picture with Jack add In

(06:19):
coming up at the top of the air News meantime,
FOP President Chapter six and nine that represents the SINCINNT
Police Department. Ken Cobra on the program, Kent your reaction.
They did go into executive session, since any council did.
They did not tell anybody why they were going into
executive session, which apparently violates Cincinnati Council requirements. The public
needs to know what they're talking about. There are limitations

(06:42):
for why you can go into executive session, like speaking
about legal matters. We don't know what they talked about,
but they went in. They were there for two hours,
and not a peep from anybody from council, the city
manager's office, the mayor. Nothing revealed. What was your reaction
to that, since they were talking apparently we guess about
this hint in settlement.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah, two hours of executive session. I wholly disagree that.
When they're discussing city matters, discussing how to spend city
tax dollars, presumably to be able to do that in secret,
I completely disagree with it. And of course, you know,
the media was there and I talked to some of
the media outlets, and of course I'm not talking about

(07:24):
I'm not talking about it. How they're able to get
away with it has bend me. I mean, a lack
of transparency. You ask every other city, you ask every
other city department be transparent, which they should be. We
all should be transparent. We're spending people's harder money. They
have a right to know how it's being used. And
this just I completely disagree with how this is being handled.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
Well that and they need a justification if they're going
to approve a settlement. I don't care if it's a
dollar or ten million or whatever. We need a justification
because right now, no one seems to be able to
come up with one, most notably given the fact that
a recipient of some of the settlement might someone who
allegedly has suffered damages, damages as a consequence of Ryan
Hinton's death, his dad who killed and murder literally murdered.

(08:09):
I would argue, a police officer literally ran them over
a sheriff's deputy because his son had been shot by
a Cincinnati police officer. You can't even find any logic
or reason in that one. But that really irks people
knowing that the man who killed a sheriff's deputy might
get a chunk of the money.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
No, without a doubt it, I said. And that's that's
probably the biggest exception I take to all of this.
You know, like I said, this settlement that they came
out with yesterday, I can rationalize and I can understand
why they did it. You know, it was something that
was done with full transparency. You know, the FOP was
aware of it. They came out what they explain why
this happened over eleven years and now we have this
that there's absolutely no transparency whatsoever. It's being done behind

(08:48):
closed doors. It's being discussed, nobody knows what's going on,
and that's it just says, this is not how a
city government should be operating.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
Well, and the city government should be operating more with
public safety in mind. And we obviously know that they
have to have purvol didn't even acknowledge we had a
crime problem until after the July last year beat down,
where he then said, all right, here's five point four
million dollars. We're going to put this towards some public safety,
including the installation of some street cameras, cameras which had
been promised for years and years. I found out yesterday

(09:19):
Greg Lansman said he has secured one million dollars in
federal taxpayer money for a project that will provide Cincinnati
police with new cameras and some mental health resources. This
is Greg Lansman coming to the rescue of Cincinnati City
Council and actually, more importantly, the residents of the city
who are clamoring for this. Just yesterday. It was announced

(09:39):
on the top of the air and new as you
heard it, we're already installing I guess ninety new cameras.
We had the money, just no one bothered installing them.
Is this Greg Lansman trying to score political points in
advance of the November election, saying I acknowledge there's an
issue downtown with crime.

Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, to be fair, to be fair, this is something
that Greg Landsman has actually worked on the last two
years to try to get this, and for one reason
or another, it's died. Dies in the Senate, dies in
the House. Oh yea, So I will give him credit.
He has been trying to do this for two years
and who knows, it may die in the Senate again.
The House approve this, but is the Senate can improve

(10:16):
And this is where the bureaucracy of government is just
it's astounding to see that it takes this long to
allocate a million dollars out of a trillion dollar budget.

Speaker 1 (10:26):
I musten all day long. I'll agree with you on that. Yeah,
you expect something of the federal government. You're bound for
disappointment because they can't agree that two and two is four.
Yet if he's been clamored to try to do this
via federal taxpayer dollars. For a couple of years, the
City of Cincinnati has been promising cameras, for example, in
the West End for a couple of years. Everyone appears

(10:47):
to acknowledge that they are beneficial in at least deterring
crime to some To some extent, they are great in
terms of finding people who commit crimes because you got
video evidence of it, Ken Cober, do you think over
the last couple of years the City of Cincinnati could
have found the million dollars Greg's been pushing for for
the last couple of years within their own budget and
prioritize the cameras, Ken.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
Without a doubt, a doubt. And I talked about this,
I think it was last week with you about how
they we only have two people, you know, two civilians
to know to maintain and operate these cameras. However, because
it's now a priority, they've now detailed some officers that
have some pretty tech savvy abilities that are now going

(11:30):
to be detailed from their administrative assignments to go out
and install and repair these cameras. So now you're right
to your point. Now, all of a sudden it has
become an absolute priority. And because now it's a priority,
it's getting done. When to be quite honest, this is
something investigators have begged for for years to get cameras fixed,
to get cameras up. But now it's finally becoming.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
A priority, finally becoming priority. And then there's all that
Ohio state money that's are in resources have been offered
by the governor. We don't know the total value you
of that, but it isn't going to cost the city
taxpayers a dime. You would think that the administration would
embrace every single bit of that free resource offer from
the state. I guess though they're a little upset because
they probably wouldn't be able to control it because it

(12:12):
would be the highest state patrol as opposed to the
since police, No, without a doubt.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
And that's that's something that I've certainly been critical of
the mare as well as you're you're getting resources in
the city that they have to pay for. And I
understand you have pay taxes in Ohio. We're still paying
for this, but we're actually getting a return on our investment. Yeah,
by having these extra resources, and why it hasn't been
utilized center as something I've certainly been critical of. I'll
never understand, you know, yeah.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
A better return on investment than the six hundred million
dollars that you'll have taxpayers are going to pay to
build us of the Cleveland Browns Stadium.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah, there's no doubt about that. Or what is it
like three hundred and fifty million dollars that the county's
now invested into a pay course stadium that we we
saw that they did not exactly have the best season.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
This year either priorities, priorities, priorities you folks on the West,
then suck it up, you know, maybe someday FLP President
Ken Kover, thank you so much for the willingness to
spend some time with my listeners and me on this
and keep up the great work representing the police of
the police force. And as I always point out, you
got my audiences back, or my back audience has your back,
and all the police departments back. We'll have we'll have

(13:23):
you on again real soon. Keep up the good work.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
Thanks Brian. It's always a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (13:28):
It's six point fifty right now. If you have KC
detalk station right after