6 ms·

>But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00. Not really. The police decided to act like corporate lackeys and TAX PAYERS paid a $40,000 settlement to a

• maxerickson 9y ago
  If you try to make the police financially responsible they will price that into their decision to do that job; there's no way to really separate the public purse.
  • bradleyjg 9y ago
    First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages in applications. Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time. Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up. I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it. Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.
      • bradleyjg 9y ago
        Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there. Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.
        • maxerickson 9y ago
          Right, but losing a job is very similar to no longer being able to get an insurance policy that allows service in a jurisdiction, in terms of the costs that will be transferred to the public.
          • bradleyjg 9y ago
            If you had to guess, in what percentage of 1983 (civil rights) cases that a municipality settles or loses do they fire the police officer(s) responsible? In what percentage of cases would you guess that automobile insurance premiums rise where a driver is found liable for an incident and the insurance company is forced to pay out?
            • maxerickson 9y ago
              Honestly, I'm gonna go with my edit above. I didn't say that there was no money to be saved, I said that there is no way to stop the public being the payer. So sure, there's a good possibility that requiring police to carry individual liability insurance would lower costs. The public would still ultimately fund the premiums on that insurance.
  • Zigurd 9y ago
    Sure there is: As with other professions with potential for high liability, police could be bonded. This would price high-risk individuals out of those positions.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      Just like the other reply, you presume that high risk individuals aren't already prevented from taking the positions.
• Kurtz79 9y ago
  "1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money" What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? The one affected by brutality would be doubly screwed. The Police as a whole should be held accountable, and victims should be ensured compensation, they are by all accounts being brutalized by the state, and the state is run with taxpayers money. Agreeing with the rest though.
  • heartbreak 9y ago
    > What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? Malpractice insurance?
  • michaelmrose 9y ago
    Basically the most reasonable strategy is that the employer which is the public is on the hook for the immediate cost and has the privilege and duty of recovering the money from the guilty. This insures that the city who is guilty of hiring the miscreant ends up with the onerous duty of collection and the victim is compensated hastily.
  • izacus 9y ago
    > What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? What happens to normal mortals when they can't pay their debts. Are policemen really so much above the law that they don't have to pay their debts either?
    • Kurtz79 9y ago
      The problem is not with the policeman, it would be with the victim that would be unable to receive compensation, if the former defaults.
      • Cerium 9y ago
        As someone else said, the police should be required to hold malpractice insurance.
• arthur_pryor 9y ago
  > 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions yes. that. that seems so obvious, but it also never seems to be the way things actually play out.
• 4bpp 9y ago
  Eh, but on the other hand, the tax payers are the ones who keep voting in governments that do not hold members of the police force accountable (and who hired policemen that do this to begin with). Such is the beauty of democracy: as long as there is no deception involved (and it doesn't seem like in this case, there was), the voters get exactly the government they deserve.