3 ms·
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
by 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]