4 ms·

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense. If the officer is prosecuted and found not guilty then why shouldn't he be able to keep his job? Th

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense. If the officer is prosecuted and found not guilty then why shouldn't he be able to keep his job? This country would be a bigger mess if we said that every person who is arrested, prosecuted, and found not guilty should still be treated as if they were guilty, should lose their job, and ultimately punished. What you are really trying to address is the difference between criminal law and department policy. It is completely possible to violate department policy and not break the law. It is also possible to break the law and not department policy. Unfortunately when it comes to use of force, many department policies follow the line of the law. Is this right or should it be different? That's a tough answer. Where do you draw the line? Do you say that every officer who fires his gun is automatically subject to termination? Do you create public panels that investigate every officer involved use of force? I can see a benefit to that, and actually think that if implemented correctly, could go a long way to resolving some of these issues. However, that too has to be handled delicately as it stands to create a lynch mob effect. You also need to ensure that the people on the panel understand the existing laws as they stand. If someone is found not guilty, you don't blame the system, you blame the law and work to change the law, not the system. There is also a difference between being criminally liable and civilly liable. Just like there is a difference between something being morally wrong and being criminally wrong.

travmatt 10y ago
I'd strip the police departments of the powers to just charge the taxpayers for money in settlements and make them purchase malpractice insurance, just like every other professional. Insurance underwriters would bring department policies nationwide up to a single uniform standard. I'd hope this skin in the game + increased investment in officer training would effect changes.
- jeffmould 10y ago
  Not sure what you refer to "charge the taxpayers for money in settlements"? Also, with the insurance, many departments themselves are insured. I think what you mean is to have the individual officer have to provide their own coverage in the form of a deduction on their paycheck. While it puts a financial stake in the officer to prevent, it also now creates a whole new problem and does not solve the underlying problem. First, if an officer is insured, it has the potential to create one of two scenarios. Scenario one is they take no action because they are afraid their "insurance rates" will go up. Similar to the way people avoid going to the doctor. Scenario two is you get the other extreme where the officer now says I'm all in if I don't have to worry about paying for my brutality. More importantly though, everyone keeps focusing on the police brutality issue. I'm not denying there is a problem in isolated incidents. However, the solution isn't attacking the departments or officers themselves. You want to work for change, start focusing on the bigger issues at hand. Fighting crime in the neighborhoods, working to find solutions for poverty, creating jobs, changing disenfranchisement laws, encouraging the building of families instead of the tearing them apart, and finally getting people to take responsibility for their actions. We could wake up tomorrow with new laws that eliminate police brutality, but the unfortunate truth is that those laws wouldn't change any of the above or work to stop racism in this country. [edit: fix typos]

travmatt 10y ago

I'd strip the police departments of the powers to just charge the taxpayers for money in settlements and make them purchase malpractice insurance, just like every other professional. Insurance underwriters would bring department policies nationwide up to a single uniform standard. I'd hope this skin in the game + increased investment in officer training would effect changes.

jeffmould 10y ago
Not sure what you refer to "charge the taxpayers for money in settlements"? Also, with the insurance, many departments themselves are insured. I think what you mean is to have the individual officer have to provide their own coverage in the form of a deduction on their paycheck. While it puts a financial stake in the officer to prevent, it also now creates a whole new problem and does not solve the underlying problem. First, if an officer is insured, it has the potential to create one of two scenarios. Scenario one is they take no action because they are afraid their "insurance rates" will go up. Similar to the way people avoid going to the doctor. Scenario two is you get the other extreme where the officer now says I'm all in if I don't have to worry about paying for my brutality. More importantly though, everyone keeps focusing on the police brutality issue. I'm not denying there is a problem in isolated incidents. However, the solution isn't attacking the departments or officers themselves. You want to work for change, start focusing on the bigger issues at hand. Fighting crime in the neighborhoods, working to find solutions for poverty, creating jobs, changing disenfranchisement laws, encouraging the building of families instead of the tearing them apart, and finally getting people to take responsibility for their actions. We could wake up tomorrow with new laws that eliminate police brutality, but the unfortunate truth is that those laws wouldn't change any of the above or work to stop racism in this country. [edit: fix typos]